IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Letter Before Claim - UKPPO

1246718

Comments

  • Elmo111
    Elmo111 Posts: 76 Forumite
    Castle wrote: »
    Is there a bottom half of the contractual Notice; although it won't matter because it might as well be fake.

    Tell Karen that they must send time stamped photos of the signs in place on that site on the day the car was parked; because, that's the only contract they can offer the driver.

    I also wondered the same about the signage she'd sent - it does seem relatively small compared to the usual private car park 'terms and conditions' you see upon entry to a car park.

    The DVLA has replied and said they'll let me know by the 14th of May how many times UKPPO has accessed my data.

    Karen hasn't replied to my most recent e-mail, sent last night. If by close of play tomorrow I have no response from her I'll ask her for the time stamped photos of the signs in place on the site for each of the 4 contraventions - tomorrow would be the last of the 7 days UKPPO would've given me to pay, so I can only imagine they're choosing not to reply/fulfil my requests to stall my need for information. :(
  • Elmo111
    Elmo111 Posts: 76 Forumite
    Hey again everyone,

    So after some patience, UKPPO has replied.

    *******

    Mr XXXXXXXXXX,

    Notice to Keeper is the letter sent to the address we receive from the DVLA. Under the balance of probabilities we must assume the letters were delivered, if not as we have suggested we would recommend you take this matter up with the Postal Service. I must admit to struggling to understand how approximately 24 letters have gone astray.

    Regards Karen
    UKPPO Legal department

    ********

    This reply from Karen completely ignores the bulk of my previous e-mail, where I requested proof of postings and asked if the copy of the PCN's she sent me are accepted as an NTK.

    Any thoughts from here? It's the shortest reply I've received since the original e-mail sent on the 3rd of April.

    Thanks everyone!
  • System
    System Posts: 178,093 Community Admin
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    edited 18 April 2018 at 6:16PM
    Karen is correct. No proof of posting is required as BoP covers it.

    To put it simply, BoP is 51%. Royal Mail's performance is 90%+. And as the Courts are large users of Royal Mail, they will know what the RM performance is. To ask for proof of posting just marks you out as ripe for picking.
  • Elmo111
    Elmo111 Posts: 76 Forumite
    Karen is correct. No proof of posting is required as BoP covers it.

    To put it simply, BoP is 51%. Royal Mail's performance is 90%+. And as the Courts are large users of Royal Mail, they will know what the RM performance is. To ask for proof of posting just marks you out as ripe for picking.

    Oh that certainly is interesting, so BoP is actually recognised as a legal step, as you'd imagine I'm new to all of this so it's a massive learn for me!

    Following previous advice on here, I think I'm trying to gather if UKPPO actually sent the supposed NTK's. There would be no other reason not to, based on the ~90% success rate of RM.

    The 24 letters she's referring to are 20 from DRP, who also can't provide me with proof of posting. The other 4 are the NTK's sent.

    I've kindly referred Karen numerous times to section 5.2 of the pre-action Protocol and she's ignored/beaten around the bush for any of my requests for information. If proof of postings are debunked based on PoB, that's fine - but the compliant NTK's are a part of this process from UKPPO's end, are they not? Other than the PCN's affixed, how else are you supposed to know you're a debtor to these private parking companies? I'm also awaiting information from the DVLA stating exactly how many times UKPPO has accessed my data.

    Tonight, per advice from Castle, I've requested time stamped photos of the signs in place on that site on the days the car was parked.

    Today was also the final of the 30 days notice given from the date of the LBC, with the last reply from UKPPO being on Tuesday evening. I'm toying with the idea of CC'ing my solicitor in for future correspondence - if intimidation is their game...

    Any further advice would be massively appreciated, I cannot thank you all enough for your time so far!
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 131,614 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    edited 19 April 2018 at 11:48PM
    I see you have replied tonight already, but have this sort of thing in your back pocket for the next response to their drivel:
    Mr XXXXXXXXXX,

    Notice to Keeper is the letter sent to the address we receive from the DVLA. Under the balance of probabilities we must assume the letters were delivered, if not as we have suggested we would recommend you take this matter up with the Postal Service. I must admit to struggling to understand how approximately 24 letters have gone astray.

    Regards Karen
    UKPPO Legal department




    Dear Karen,

    A Notice to Keeper is the letter that a parking firm is required to send to the address supplied by the DVLA, if the operator is to rely upon the POFA, Schedule 4.

    Under the balance of probabilities, since you continue to evade providing me with a copy of that purported document in our pre-action communications, I must assume the Notice to Keeper(s) do not exist. Alternatively, that you are withholding a copy because you know they are not POFA compliant and that you have no cause of action against me in law.

    I must admit to struggling to understand how UKPPO can defend not supplying (vital to your case) copies of any NTK(s) on the one hand, yet suggesting - as if it is a good thing - that it will be your case that UKPPO bombarded me with 'approximately 24 letters'.

    It is with distress that I note that your claimed amount of letters you boast that you will say were sent to me, is approximately twice as many demands than the unwarranted demands which bombarded the consumer victim in the case of Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46, where the company's course of conduct amounted to unlawful harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and they were liable to pay the defendant over £10,000 in compensation.

    The persistent misuse of my data, that UKPPO bought from the DVLA for the strictly limited purpose of 'enquiring who was driving' (no more is allowed under the KADOE rules) is causing me significant distress. I have no wish to set out, for your delectation and/or discussion among your colleagues, the details of the distress and alarm your company has caused and continues to cause, but will certainly do so in a counter-claim, should UKPPO proceed with a claim against me, the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    I refer UKPPO to two rulings where County Court Judges have accepted the tort of damages against parking companies with similar baseless claims for 'parking charges', namely:

    (a) Claim No D6GM2199 at the County Court at Bury Court: Civil Enforcement Ltd v Mr B, where District Judge Osborne accepted the argument about a DPA breach by a Parking Company who could not hold a registered keeper liable (just like UKPPO), yet still pursued that party. He agreed £500 was not unreasonable, given the distress of demands and a court claim. He said he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case. The Court's attention is respectfully drawn to the fact that exemplary costs of £405 (as requested) was granted. This is understood to have arisen due to the claim being found to be false and/or vexatious, or where a party is found to be guilty of misrepresentation or suppression of facts.

    (b) On 16th March 2018 at Slough in case D8HW7G7P, UK Parking Control Limited v Mr S, a £500 counter-claim was granted to the successful Defendant due to data protection breaches, and at the same time, the original meritless parking charge claim was dismissed. It is my understanding that the successful party is obtaining a transcript of that decision which will be made available for other beleaguered registered keepers to use, and I will certainly adduce it in support of my counter claim for damages.

    Take formal note, I require UKPPO to step back from your course of conduct and to cease and desist. You may consider this a drop hands offer and it remains open to you to accept, and to cancel the 'parking charge(s)' that - if they had any merit - you should have pursued from the party with whom you have positively identified that a contract existed.

    This drop hands offer ceases to apply at 4.30pm on 30th April 2018.

    Yours sincerely,
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • System
    System Posts: 178,093 Community Admin
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    edited 20 April 2018 at 5:23AM
    How can the OP be "harassed" when in his first posting the OP said "I am absolutely in no way disputing the original parking charge notices and I'm more than willing to pay the initial figure of each notice"

    4 tickets at 6 letters each of which 4 (16 letters in all) will be from debt collectors. The missing paperwork is one thing but the facts around the 4 charges / location / signs is another.

    If a claim does arise, the OP could admit part of the debt IF that is their wish. Then it would be down to whether the additional costs were actually incurred. UKPPO would then have to decide if they take what is offered (the original charges) or pay to have their "additional costs" examined in court.
  • Elmo111
    Elmo111 Posts: 76 Forumite
    Morning everyone,

    Much quicker than usual, Karen has decided to reply.

    ***********

    To Mr XXXXX,

    I intend to issue a claim through money claim online. I will be entering the details of the claim on the 25th April 2018.

    Please note any future correspondence will be filed, but not responded to.

    Regards
    Karen
    UKPPO Legal department

    *************

    What's my next steps from here? Is this UKPPO issuing court proceedings?
  • Quentin
    Quentin Posts: 40,405 Forumite
    Elmo111 wrote: »
    What's my next steps from here? Is this UKPPO issuing court proceedings?



    No


    She is "allowing" you a little extra time to pay.


    If (when!) you don't then she is saying she will issue proceedings in 5 days time


    If she does then follow the advice in #2 in the newbies faq on court claims
  • Elmo111
    Elmo111 Posts: 76 Forumite
    @Coupon-mad

    An absolutely massive thanks to your reply, it's a shame I didn't get to use it.

    Thanks to everybody so far for your responses too, I've learnt a lot and now we move onto the next step of this journey it seems. :(
  • Elmo111
    Elmo111 Posts: 76 Forumite
    edited 23 April 2018 at 5:10PM
    Hey everyone,

    This afternoon I've had a reply from the DVLA responding to my quest for information regarding how many times UKPPO have access my data.

    **********

    Freedom of Information Request
    Thank you for your e-mail of 13 April requesting information under the terms of the
    Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

    You asked:
    I!!!8217;d like to know on how many occasions vehicle data has been accessed by UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd.

    I can advise you that it is more appropriate to handle your request in accordance with section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). This is the correct route to ask for information that DVLA holds about you and the Agency needs to satisfy itself that the person asking for their information is the person entitled to receive it. Under the FOIA, the reasoning behind a request cannot be taken into consideration and any information that is disclosed under the FOIA is then considered to be information disclosed into the public domain.

    Therefore, your request will be dealt with by the appropriate area of the Agency and colleagues there will contact you in due course.

    While the Agency is handling your request under the DPA provisions, DVLA is still bound to formally consider your FOI request in accordance with section 17 of the FOIA. The information you are requesting is considered to be personal information and so we can neither confirm nor deny that it is held.

    The duty to confirm or deny whether the information you have requested is held does not apply by virtue of section 40(5)(a) of the FOIA. This should not be taken to be evidence that the information you requested does or does not exist.

    The information which follows concerns the procedures for making any complaint you might have about the reply. Please quote the reference number of this letter in any future communications about it.

    **********

    Am I right in thinking that the DVLA usually bounce you from pillar to post in regards to getting this kind of information? Or has the original e-mail I sent gone to the wrong department?!

    Happy Monday!
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards