IE Legal Total Parking Solutions

echo6 · 23 December 2017 at 9:01PM

My son is a first year Uni Student, resident at the Swansea Bay campus. Is the registered keeper of the vehicle concerning three NtK PCNs which he ignored.

Parking is free to resident students between 4pm-8am weekdays and free throughout the weekend to those who have acquired a Permit.
All NtK PCNs are for the overnight period during a weekday. The one referenced in the letter from IE Legal has a photo of the vehicle on the road exiting the car park 08:15, 15 mins over the 4pm-8am period. The camera does not cover a view of the car park.

He has received a letter from IE Legal, FORMAL DEMAND, NOTICE OF IMPENDING LEGAL ACTION on behalf of TPS for £110

hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/2llkbnt.png
hxxp://i66.tinypic.com/2yk05eg.png

My son states the signage in the car park is poor, small letters and not visible to drivers, especially at night. He has a Permit issued by Estates & Facilities Management.

It would appear the PCNs were generated whilst the Permit was being raised and issued.

I am of the view to contest this and subsequent demands or any resulting CCC.

I read with interest the other post here concerning TPS and IE Legal;
hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5648451

I have started following the advice in the NEWBIES and FAQ. including
the LBC post hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4754020

Although I'm not convinced that this letter could be construed as a LBC, should I respond to this letter indicating a dispute? How much detail should I provide at this stage?

My assumption is that the POPLA appeals process is no longer valid in these circumstances?

I will taking the issue up with the Universitie's Estates & Facilities Management regarding TPS.

Coupon-mad · 23 December 2017 at 9:09PM

Nasty. I'm glad my son decided not to put Swansea down as a choice for next year, for that reason alone. I've had fun & games with the parking firm (F1rst) at Bath Uni when my other DS went there; got loads of their worthless 'tickets' overturned for other student friends and their parents.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2llkbnt&s=9#.Wj62td9l_IU

I have started following the advice in the NEWBIES and FAQ. including
the LBC post hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4754020

That's very out of date. Do I still link that in the NEWBIES thread? I must remove it if so.

You need a version of the letter by Johnersh* that you can find by searching the forum for the word 'cathartic'. Mix and match it with the letter based on one by LoadsofChildren123* that you can find when you search for the words 'solicitors immune'. When you use the search this forum dropdown, choose 'advanced search' and put those keywords in and change it to 'show POSTS' (never threads).

*both posters are solicitors so their letters are well-worded.

Umkomaas · 23 December 2017 at 9:13PM

http://i65.tinypic.com/2llkbnt.png
http://i66.tinypic.com/2yk05eg.png

That’s not a LBC - it’s a debt collector-style communication.

Call their bluff and tell them you need to have this sorted out by a judge and they should now issue a formal LBC that is fully compliant with the new Pre-action Protocol (PaP) .......... or FRO!

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf

echo6 · 23 December 2017 at 9:34PM

Many thanks for the swift response!

You need a version of the letter by Johnersh* that you can find by searching the forum for the word 'cathartic'. Mix and match it with the letter based on one by LoadsofChildren123* that you can find when you search for the words 'solicitors immune'. When you use the search this forum dropdown, choose 'advanced search' and put those keywords in and change it to 'show POSTS' (never threads).

For the avoidance of doubt, do you mean the following posts?
hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72802210#21
hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72358831#21

p.s. how long before I can post links?

echo6 · 23 December 2017 at 9:36PM

:-)

Awesome, also thank you for the swift response.

echo6 · 25 December 2017 at 11:08PM

This is what I have prepared for my son to respond, not to much deviation from the recommended responses in the references provided.

I am also writing to the University, and will likely also write to the Local Trading Standards.

Dear Sir,

I refer to your correspondence of Wednesday 20 December 2017.

I wish to make a complaint on the basis that your letter is threatening, misleading as to the law and an abuse of the process of debt recovery. I refer to the Solicitors Regulation Authority Warning Notice issued 11 June 2013.

To the extent that the correspondence may have been sent by a third party, the letter is on I E Legal letterhead and the firm is responsible for the content. I wish to raise the following points:

1. Your letter infers you or agents on behalf of your client will seek to obtain a County Court Judgement which may affect
1.1 My ability to obtain credit
1.2 My ability to borrow funds
1.3 My ability to obtain employment
1.4 Be subject to bailiff enforcement or an attachment of earnings order.

All of the above points are misleading as to the position and may impair access to justice. The Court will determine any dispute if proceedings are commenced. In the event that a Judgment is awarded in your client's favour none of the above will occur provided that the Judgment is paid promptly. This is not made clear precisely to prompt the recipient into early payment and to discourage any defence of the action (however meritorious).

2. The full extent of Court enforcement is set out within the letter in a manner which is aggressive and intimidation without making the process of debt recovery clear (in clear disregard of the Warning Notice).

3. Your correspondence gives rise to no consideration of the recipient's position or any defence of the proposed action or consideration of negotiated settlement, only payment of the debt, which is neither admitted nor proven

4. At £110 the debt sought would appear to be set at a level beyond that which is likely to be recoverable in the small claims court (or at all) and may therefore misstate the correct legal position regarding the recovery of any parking charge in this matter, were your client to be successful.

5. The letter received contains no details of any individual at I E Legal, being signed simply as “Collections Team”. The “Collections Team” is not listed on the firm's website or a registered solicitor. It is unclear as to what position the “Collections Team” maintains or if an individual that is a regulated person as required for “reserved legal activities” set out by the Legal Services Act 2007. It is further not clear that the “Collections Team” have appropriately represented their status as required by the Warning Notice.

6. Your letter does not meet the requirements set out by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

We expect you to accurately and openly represent your authority/status in all communications, and to convey in those communications the correct legal position with regard to debts and the debt recovery process.

I look forward to hearing from you.

No sure as to point 4? My understanding is that the claim for debt can only be for;
POFA 9(2)d total amount of parking charges which are unpaid
POFA 4(5) the maximum sum which may be recovered

I was tempted to quote Section 40 Administration of Justice Act 1970, but left that out as perhaps it goes a step to far.

I note that the PCNs are all raised for "No payment" where perhaps they should have chosen "Not displaying a valid permit, or a Pay & Display Ticket". According to the Conditions of issue for Parking Permits by the Uni. I've not had a chance to visit the site to review the signs etc, but suspect my son is correct that at night they are not "adequate". Which may be irrelevant but I want to appreciate what can be recovered according to the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 in the worst case.

A sanitized example of the PCNs available from;
hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/34rh8it.png
hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/2lxilo9.png

It is not possible to identify the driver. This vehicle is insured for more than one driver. It is not possible to determine if a Permit is on display.

In my correspondence to the University I will be requesting they provide me with
1) a copy of the completed Application for Parking Permit that my son completed
2) a copy of the Permit and ANPR processes (based on the Permits condition of issue - as the details are loaded into the ANPR camera database - failure to do so results in automatic issue of PCN)
3) a copy or summary of the contractual arrangements between Swansea University Estates and Total Parking Solutions.

I've not gone down the DPA/DVLA route yet, I have a big issue about Private Companies having access to what should be for the purpose of processing by the "State".

Please be critical! I may totally off point on many aspects here so would appreciate feed back and hope that is beneficial to others.

Coupon-mad · 26 December 2017 at 4:05PM

I was tempted to quote Section 40 Administration of Justice Act 1970, but left that out as perhaps it goes a step to far.

Leave that out and I would remove #4 as well.

Maybe add something about this instead:

I note that the PCNs are all raised for "No payment"

So maybe add this as #4 instead:

Your client appears to have issued meritless PCNs alleging 'no payment', despite the fact that this vehicle belongs to a student and has a permit. The driver(s) on the material dates were not required to make any payment and cannot have contravened such a term. Your client is put to strict proof of the existence of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' requiring payment, and in addition, your client must set out their legitimate interest in pursuing registered keepers of permitted cars at this location.

echo6 · 27 December 2017 at 1:04PM

Thank you, may have difficulty with that last point, as I don't know the dates when he was issued with a Permit. I'm having to write to Estates at the University to request for a copy of the Permit application and their processes for adding details to the ANPR database.

I visited the site to view the signs, poor signage on the approach to the car park, there is a pay & display kiosk and sign, but it is tucked in behind a fence on a corner. The car park has temporary lighting as it is a new development, and my son informs me the lighting is very poor.

hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/okcpvr.png
hxxp://i68.tinypic.com/25u5z0i.png
hxxp://i65.tinypic.com/attf9u.jpg
hxxp://i66.tinypic.com/v7xdhw.jpg
hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/2lkejh5.jpg

Coupon-mad · 27 December 2017 at 6:43PM

Thank you, may have difficulty with that last point, as I don't know the dates when he was issued with a Permit.

Not really, because I didn't write it that way...if you re-read it I didn't say that a permit was displayed at the time, only that the car was 'permitted' to park (true, it belongs to a student) and 'has a permit' (true, now) and that no payment was needed (true).

Use the words I wrote, or similar. The idea is to be robust and put the PPC to proof of their 'legitimate interest' and a relevant contract and relevant obligation (all necessary if they are to have a case).

echo6 · 27 December 2017 at 7:00PM

Understood, thanks. Letters have been sent, I'm now in the process of writing to the land owner now that I have seen the signs, St Modwen.

According to the BPA, the entrance signs is woefully inadequate. Signage whilst small is spread out at regular intervals within the car park.

I'm a little unclear about, parking charge and administration costs that can be included or expected from costs of debt recovery. Any advice on what to expect from directions from County Court would be gratefully received.

Coupon-mad · 27 December 2017 at 7:16PM

None from 'debt recovery' because none are actually paid. PPCs make it up, an we know firms like Debt Recovery Plus operate and openly advertise 'no collection, no fee'.

And the POFA says that the only sum that can be recovered is the sum stated on the NTK (i.e. the full parking charge, no more than £100). Even in the Beavis case only £85 was recovered, which the Supreme Court found as fact was already highly inflated to include costs and profit (therefore there is no valid argument to add more on top, pretending this is 'costs' or 'damages', but of course PPCs do all the time and it's up to the Defendant to see that rubbish off).

We see posters here win 99% of the time when fully coached from defence through to hearings, including several regarding Universities and shedloads regarding 'no permit' allegations.

The odd person who lost (only twice in 2017 AFAIK, out of HUNDREDS), paid about £175 - £200 all told; no CCJ, no risk, no nothing. Well worth fighting back.

IE Legal Total Parking Solutions

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free