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.
MB- Popla Rebut Ques
Options
Comments
-
Morning all,
Could people cast their eyes over my response letter to Gladstones please. I have already placed an SAR to Minster themselves, awaiting their reply. My comments are inside the {}'s to be deleted before sending obvs
Thanks in advance.
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your letter dated 1xth November 2018, Ref xxxxxx.xxxx.
You have now sent a Letter Before Claim. However, your letter and the letter from Minster Baywatch Ltd, contain insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide the photographic evidence of my vehicle being parked at the Riverside Car Park that I requested during the POPLA appeal September 2018. It does not contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence, hence I have sent your client a Subject Access Request and I require a restriction of data processing and the case be put ‘on hold’ until they have responded fully.
I acknowledge you have provided a link on your website for ‘the PAP’, however upon reading ‘the PAP’ on the Government website you have clearly contravened:
• Para 3.1 (a) (v), Gladstones and Minster Baywatch assume that I as the vehicle owner was the driver on the alleged date, I was not, therefore your assigned debt is to whom?!
• Para 3.1 (b) (i) You state your clients charges include £60 for their time spent facilitating recovery of charges, however the charge amount is for £160. You have failed to detail how there is a discrepancy in figures.
• Para 3.1 (c) you are required to “enclose” a copy of the information sheet and reply form. Nowhere does it state that a link should be provided where the debtor must create an account to view the PAP.
This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Protocol binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.
Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Protocol, I refer you to Para 7.1.
I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. an explanation of Minster Baywatch’s grace period, as their evidence to POPLA states “Minster Baywatch implement a grace period at this site which is higher than the BPA guideline” Annex A enclosed of Minster Baywatch’s Evidence Pack {I have put this as their ticketing evidence they used has discrepancies in its timings list, therefore I don’t believe their ticket machine data can be relied upon as accurate. I intend to use against them if courts proceedings go ahead, but not on this letter.}
2. whether your client is pursuing me, as driver or keeper. Minster Baywatch have still to prove who was driving the vehicle at the alleged time and who purchased a ticket
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, currently no advice has been given on an outstanding tariff amount [POFA 2012, Para 8 (2)(d)] only an inflated charge
4. signed and dated maintenance records for the daily auditing of ANPR equipment covering the period in question, as Minster Baywatch have stated “Our ANPR cameras are audited daily” refer to Annex B
5. an unedited copy of the contract with the landowner, under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed on the date in question (not a dated google image) {interestingly in their original evidence pack they have used a doctored google image, I am not sure if this is legal or acceptable so again I will be keeping this in the bag until court}, including an image of the vehicle in question in visible sight of a sign
8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge. What that represents, and how it has been calculated.
10. the successful planning permission for the installation of ANPR equipment and associated equipment and signs {I picked this up from another thread and it seems like a very poignant piece of information}
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraph 5 of the Protocol, and I look forward to receiving all the documents.
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely unnecessary (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings.
Yours faithfully0 -
Yes that's fine.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 THREAD1 -
Thank you CM for taking the time to read it. Appreciated.0
-
So after a year of starting this thread, things have progressed. I never received any of the requested information from my previous letter to Gladstones and then the other day I received a county court claim form. That has been responded to by ticking the 'defend in full' box only and returned.
I am now putting my defence here to be scrutinised by the kind forum folk who offer their time so kindly:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No:………
BETWEEN:
Minster Baywatch Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
……………. (Defendant)
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged parking charge notice. The claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract, whilst parking at R…………. car park on 1……
2. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant’s £100 Charge Value.
2.1. The Claimant’s £100 Charge Value has risen to £105 for the PCN as per the received ‘County Court Claim Form’. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation as to how the sum has been calculated, or the conduct that gave rise to it.
2.2. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £55.00 contractor costs, for which no calculation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
3. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site, and unreliable data published by their inaccurate machine records. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper (who was not the driver of the vehicle) failing to “pay for their parking duration in full” – Pg 3 Evidence Pack-up.
4. The terms on the Claimant’s signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
5. The Claimant has provided data from ticket sales equipment, with sporadic timings that in instances do not run chronologically. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the sales equipment indeed provides accurate payment details.
6. The Claimant has contravened the Pre-Action Protocol Para 3.1 (a) (v) by assuming the Defendant as the vehicle owner at the alleged time was the driver, this is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence who the alleged contract is between.
6.1 The Claimant has further contravened the Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) Para 3.1 (c) which requires the Claimant to “enclose” a copy of the information sheet and reply form. It does not state that a link should be provided where an individual is required to create an account to view the PAP.
7. The Claimant has failed to provide upon request, evidence of the ‘higher than the BPA guideline’ grace period.
8. The Claimant has failed to provide upon request, signed and dated maintenance records for daily auditing of ANPR equipment over the alleged period.
9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the licence agreement evidenced continues into perpetuity, and the identity of the signatory is provided.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
It doesn't seem like a lot to rely on when I read it back to myself? I have to say I'm very sceptical of succeeding if this goes all the way, and my partner keeps nagging me to pay it rather than keep trying to fight it.
TIA for reading and providing any feedback.0 -
did you get the SAR reply from MB themselves ?
if not , send another one by email asap
post the ISSUE DATE from the claim form below0 -
-
Issue date is needed
Any reason you didnt use thte details to ack., online?0 -
Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
LBC received in November '18. Reply form to PAP also sent Nov '18.
A prompt from GS received in December '18.
Issue Date 23 July, replied via post as opposed to online for no specific reason.
Can't find anything received regarding the SAR though.0 -
Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.
Did send letters to both land owner and local MP previously, I received correspondence from the MP but no advice on how he could assist? Do they have the power help squash the PCN? He himself had received a PCN from a different car park locally, but again no advice was offered.0
This discussion has been closed.
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