Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 30th May 17, 10:53 AM
    • 148Posts
    • 34Thanks
    jrc123
    Fine after 30seconds
    • #1
    • 30th May 17, 10:53 AM
    Fine after 30seconds 30th May 17 at 10:53 AM
    Dear Members
    Sorry if this has been answered before.

    I drove down a public road which PCM Ltd operate.


    I drove down the road stopped with my car running got out to read the sign which says no parking. I then turned around to see someone taking a photo of my car.

    I told them i am not parking and now moving and drove off. All this happening in a space of 30seconds which are also shown on the images on the PCM website.

    When i received the fine i stupidly appealed saying I had to pull over as i was unwell to take something out of my boot and the car was running. Still also in the 30 second time frame.

    My appeal was rejected what can i do now?
    thanks for the help
    Last edited by jrc123; 20-07-2018 at 10:50 AM.
Page 10
    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 6th Apr 18, 4:46 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    jrc123
    Redx totally agree

    Will await any pointers from any forum members with defence advice.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Apr 18, 5:53 PM
    • 61,501 Posts
    • 74,381 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    HI Redx

    claiming I will be doingI read I can claim upto £95 plus travel plus parking etc.

    But I also read about making a claim after about taking my data? stress? being a con company?

    is this something I can do? or any posts relating to this?


    Did you manage to have a look at my defense?

    thanks
    Originally posted by jrc123
    If you are serious about a counter-claim, read Henry Hippo's threads on pepipoo. One is about byelaws land and still ongoing with a hearing happening in a few weeks, and one has been won already. Both his cases included a counter-claim that I helped to write and the one that has been heard, was granted by the court.

    It costs £25 up front to claim for a few hundred, but you would need to word it well, cite the right case law and explain the level of distress in detail, like Henry Hippo did on pepipoo forum.

    should mention the original appeal where I stated I stopped when I was unwell , read the sign and drove off?
    Yes and state that this is on all fours with Vine v Waltham Forest (search the forum for defence Miss Vine to see how people have used that case).

    Your defence is very wordy at the start. I would cut out the waffle. Here is an example I wrote the other day, where only the first 2 paragraphs mention the robo-claim/lack of POC issue:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74116029#post74116029

    HTH
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 9th Apr 18, 10:59 AM
    • 148 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    jrc123
    Morning all,

    I have updated my defence as Coupon Mad mentioned above.
    *Points 1 + 2 I have change to less word robo-claim/lack of POC issue
    *Point 4 - quotes Miss Vine.

    Is this ok submit now?

    I have quoted

    *Byelaws
    *Roboclaim, lack of info
    *Miss Vine

    Are there any old cases where someone has put they have appealed prior?
    Should I quote the Beavis case? if so what part?
    Should I quote about the inflated costs now at over £250+
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Claim Number XXX
    Between:
    XXX Limited v XXX

    I am XXXXXXXXXXX, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle XXXXX. I currently reside at XXXXXXXXXXXXX.

    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:


    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to fully engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation. The Claimant failed to respond to the Defendant's letter dated 6th December 2018, asking for more evidence, and merely proceeded to issue a claim.

    Background
    3. The Defendant further denies that any contract was formed because the driver did not "park" according to the ordinary meaning of that word or according to the definition in POFA; the driver merely drove into the site, read the sign which wasn’t accepted and exited the site. A period of only 2 minutes passing between the time of entry and the time of exit recorded by the Claimant. The driver cannot therefore have accepted any contractual terms (if any, which is denied) that were offered by the Claimant. Of which there is evidence shown in photos of the driver reading the sign, not accepting the contract by driving off.

    The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period (15.1 & 15.2) must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.

    (15.1) Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

    (15.2) Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.

    4. In the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':
    (a) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (b) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
    I submit the case 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' The driver had not seen the terms and consequently, was not deemed bound by them. This judgment meant that if terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked and the signs were obscured and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    In the case of the defendant no signs can be found at the entrance of the site, the first signs can only be seen when driving down the road and need to be read up close.

    5. Photographic evidence shows the claimant going to read the sign at the time of 9:12am and not accepting the contract and leaving the site at 9.14am. This is within the time frame mentioned in point 3 prior.

    Failure to set out clearly
    6. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the IPC Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    (b) The signage was not visible, any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (c) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    (d) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
    (e) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.

    7. The Claimant’s signage which is found further down the road and not at the entrance with the largest font at this site states “This Road is Private Property. Any parking is prohibited at all times in accordance with Railway Byelaw 14. Any Trespassers will force legal action. 24 hour access for railway use”. The claimant's claim should be struck out because any claim of breach of byelaws is a matter for Magistrates' court, and if the claimant is suggesting that they can run contract law alongside byelaws on 'non-relevant land' (as defined in the POFA) then it is a fact that a registered keeper/driver cannot be held liable in law, in any case. The case should also be brought forward by the landowner within 6months of which this time has now passed.

    8. In addition, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules that if signage has multiple interpretation the interpretation most favourable to the consumer applies. It is clear from this the signage with the largest font should apply.

    9. In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the ‘contravention’ according to the Claimant is already committed.

    10. The above point was recently tested in several cases regarding Hayes and Harlington station. There a similar situation arises as the vehicles were charged for briefly stopping but the signs are far away from vehicles and high up.

    In all cases it was ruled that no contract was entered by performance as the signage could not be read from a vehicle. No transcripts are available but as PCM UK were the claimant in all cases they will be fully aware of the cases; C3GF46K8, C3GF44K8, C3GFY8K8 ,

    11. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (b) sum pursued exceeds £100.

    12. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is unclear whether Parking Control Management (PCM) Limited hold a legitimate contract on this road. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    13. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    14. The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr XXXXXXX (claimants legal representative who signed the form) is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. The defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    Byelaws
    15. Railway Byelaws –

    As this land comes under railway byelaws this is not a claim to be brought by the Parking Control Management (PCM) Ltd but by the Train Operating Company which leases the land/or the landowner and the correct procedure is for such proceedings to be pursued in the magistrate’s court, not the county court.
    The claimant's claim should be struck out because any claim of breach of byelaws is a matter for Magistrates' court, and if the claimant is suggesting that they can run contract law alongside byelaws on 'non-relevant land' (as defined in the POFA) then it is a fact that a registered keeper/driver cannot be held liable in law, in any case.
    The IPC Code of Conduct 9.1 states; It is your (PCM Ltd) responsibility to establish whether any land upon which you operate is subject to any Byelaws. Where land is subject to Byelaws you must ensure that your practices are in accordance with them or, alternatively, that you operate a scheme that is not prohibited by them. PCM have broken this code as stated in the points above.

    16. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

    (a)Issued an erroneous claim to the defendant regarding an unknown vehicle, rendering their administration questionable.
    (b) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
    (c) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated xxxxxxx requesting further information and details of the claim.

    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
    Last edited by jrc123; 09-04-2018 at 1:02 PM.
    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 9th Apr 18, 4:01 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    jrc123
    hi all any comments?
    any byelaws should I add?

    thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 4:17 PM
    • 61,501 Posts
    • 74,381 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    DEFENCE


    I am XXXXXXXXXXX, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle XXXXX. I currently reside at XXXXXXXXXXXXX.
    You need a heading 'DEFENCE' in the middle top, and do not need your address unless it has changed and the claim went to an old address.

    Where you use an acronym like IPC, you must write it in full the first time, e.g.

    The IPC code of conduct
    should be

    The International Parking Community Code of Practice
    And it's not 'Conduct' it's 'Practice' read the right one here:

    https://theipc.info/downloads

    This (below) should be in point #3, maybe as 3.1
    5. Photographic evidence shows the claimant going to read the sign at the time of 9:12am and not accepting the contract and leaving the site at 9.14am. This is within the time frame mentioned in point 3 prior.
    This isn't written properly, the #6 interrupts your sentence:
    Failure to set out clearly
    6. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver

    Remove this as they are not in the BPA:
    11. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (b) sum pursued exceeds £100.
    Have you decided against a counter-claim? Your case is a bit like Henry Hippo's one v District Enforcement (and he has won a counter claim for £500 already in his other case). His transcript should be available soon - hopefully by May - as he's using some of the money to obtain it.

    Are you not up for copying what he did and trying for £500 in your case, which IMHO, does lend itself to giving it a go?!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 9th Apr 18, 4:30 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    jrc123
    Hi Coupon- Mad
    thanks for the pointers I have amended this all now.

    1. #6 This was just a number as point number 6 - should I take the number part out?
    2. If i am happy to send my defense now is that ok even though there are over 28+ days to do so?
    3. are there any byelaws I should add?
    4. Gladstones responded to one of my letters for the LBC (hardly any details) but the second one they didnt, should i mention anything about the first one? i only mention the second.
    5. I would like to counterclaim - do i do so seperately now or wait until after the trail?

    thanks for all the replies as always
    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 9th Apr 18, 4:32 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    jrc123
    is it this form link?
    http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t114450-200.html
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 4:35 PM
    • 61,501 Posts
    • 74,381 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's one of his cases, yes, that is the one he has won already. He shows what he used & said about the significant effects and detail of his distress and Vidal Hall, Halliday, Blamires, compensation et al.

    He has his other one on the go, also with a counter claim in play, which is more like yours due to the land not being 'relevant land'. You can find his other case by clicking on his username when logged in.

    Both show lots of detail of his defence, WS and counter-claim, I am sure. Well worth cribbing from!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 9th Apr 18, 4:37 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    jrc123
    thanks I will do that now and have a read through..

    just wondered if you saw these points:

    1. #6 This was just a number as point number 6 - should I take the number part out?
    2. If i am happy to send my defense now is that ok even though there are over 28+ days to do so?
    3. are there any byelaws I should add?
    4. Gladstones responded to one of my letters for the LBC (hardly any details) but the second one they didnt, should i mention anything about the first one? i only mention the second.
    5. I would like to counterclaim - do i do so seperately now or wait until after the trail?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 4:43 PM
    • 61,501 Posts
    • 74,381 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    1. #6 This was just a number as point number 6 - should I take the number part out?
    NO. The problem is it cuts though a sentence and makes no sense!

    2. If i am happy to send my defense now is that ok even though there are over 28+ days to do so?
    Defence. And you do not have 'over 28 days to do so', surely, counting from the date of service?

    3. are there any byelaws I should add?
    Not at this stage, you get to file your evidence like signage photos, byelaws, etc., at WS stage.

    4. Gladstones responded to one of my letters for the LBC (hardly any details) but the second one they didnt, should i mention anything about the first one? i only mention the second.
    Not really, it's not a game changer.

    5. I would like to counterclaim - do i do so separately now or wait until after the trail?
    You MUST counter claim NOW at the same time or it costs you a fortune to add it later (not worthwhile). Now, it costs you just £25 and you will need to send your defence & counterclaim by post with a cheque, or by email then phone the CCBC to pay by card over the phone to cover the fee at the outset, so it isn't struck out.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 9th Apr 18, 4:46 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    jrc123
    noted on all the above.

    I'm going to read through the Henrys counterclaim and decide

    will report back
    • Castle
    • By Castle 9th Apr 18, 4:47 PM
    • 1,889 Posts
    • 2,557 Thanks
    Castle
    In paragraph 2 you stated:-
    "The Claimant failed to respond to the Defendant's letter dated 6th December 2018, asking for more evidence, and merely proceeded to issue a claim."
    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 9th Apr 18, 4:48 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    jrc123
    Hi Castle - should I change that to something else?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Apr 18, 4:53 PM
    • 9,214 Posts
    • 9,397 Thanks
    KeithP
    Yes... unless you know what is going to happen on 6 December 2018.

    .
    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 9th Apr 18, 5:13 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    jrc123
    haha! yes correct ill change that
    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 9th Apr 18, 5:43 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    jrc123
    was it this one for DPA?

    CLAIM NUMBER: [xxx]

    [xxx] (DEFENDANT) V [xxx] (CLAIMANT)

    DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST THE CLAIMANT

    1. This is the Defendant's counterclaim against the Claimant for unlawful processing of data by the Claimant causing damage and/or distress to the Defendant.

    2. Between 17/03/17 and 09/05/17 the Claimant processed the Defendant's personal data in such a way as to cause the Defendant significant distress. The distress caused was unwarranted.

    3. Briefly, the Defendant was caused significant distress because

    (a) The Defendant has been harassed with multiple letters and threats for no just reason

    (b) The Defendant has had a Money Claim issued against him with no just reason.

    4. Briefly, the distress was unwarranted because the Claimant had no good reason to process the data in the way that it did.

    5. Breaching the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 gives rise to liability in tort - Google Inc v Vidal-Hall & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 311.

    And the Defendant claims:

    (a) damages, in such sums as the Court may find; and

    (b) interest, pursuant to s. 69 of the County Courts Act 1984, at such rates and for such periods on the sums found due to the Defendant as the Court may think fit.

    The Defendant believes the facts stated in this counterclaim are true.

    Signed by the Defendant:

    Date:
    Last edited by jrc123; 09-04-2018 at 5:47 PM.
    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 9th Apr 18, 5:54 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    jrc123
    do I need to do a cost schedule and submit at the same time?

    Defendant!!!8217;s Cost Schedule:

    Costs of attending Court

    1. Lost earnings for a half day of work. I earn £200 a day, therefore I will claim the maximum of £95.00
    2. Mileage to court. 40 miles at £0.45 per mile. £18.00
    3. Parking for 3 hours. £11.00

    SUBTOTAL: £124.00

    Time Spent Reading:

    4. Statement of Claim Form: 30 minutes. 0.5 hours
    5. Emailing FirstPort three times: 10 minutes x 3. 0.5 hours
    6. Official Copy of Register: 15 minutes. 0.25 hours
    7. Lease: 1 hour
    8. Chartered Trust V Davies: 30 minutes. 0.5 hours
    9. Popla 2015: 30 minutes. 0.5 hours
    10. Letter to SCS Jul 2017: 30 minutes. 0.5 hours

    Time Spent Drafting:

    11. Acknowledgement of Service Form: 30 minutes. 0.5 hours
    12. Statement of Defence: 4 hours
    13. Directions Questionnaire: 30 minutes. 0.5 hours
    14. Witness Statement: 4 hours
    15. Administration (printing, scanning, assembling documents and time to post): 2 hours

    TOTAL TIME: 16.75 hours rounded up to 17 hours at £19.00 per hour = £323.00

    Disbursements

    16. Printing of documents: 100 pages at £0.10 per page = £10.00
    17. Postage of Witness Statement to Court = £2.50
    18. Postage of Witness Statement to SCS = £2.50

    Subtotal: £15.00

    GRAND TOTAL: £462.00

    Signed
    Henry Hippo

    Defendants Counter Claim Cost Schedule

    Time Spent Reading

    1. Telegraph Article: 15 minutes. 0.25 hours
    2. Consumer Rights Act 2015: 30 minutes. 0.5 hours
    3. Data Protection Act 1998: 1 hour
    4. Parking Eye V Beavis: 1 hour
    5. IPC Code of Practice: 1 hour
    6. Ferguson V British Gas: 1 hour
    7. Vidall-Hall V Google: 1 hour
    8. Halliday V Creation: 1 hour

    Time Spent Drafting

    9. Counter Claim: 3 hours
    10. Administration (printing, scanning, assembling documents and time to post): 2 hours

    TOTAL TIME: 11.75 hours rounded up to 12 hours at £19.00 per hour = £228.00

    Disbursements

    1. Printing of documents: 100 pages at £0.10 per page = £10.00
    2. Counter Claim Fee = £35.00
    3. Counter claim hearing fee, in the event that this Claimant discontinues prior to the hearing the Defendant will pay £25.00

    Subtotal: £45.00 (£70.00 if the Claimant discontinues)

    GRAND TOTAL: £273.00 (£298.00 if the Claimant discontinues)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 6:21 PM
    • 61,501 Posts
    • 74,381 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    was it this one for DPA?
    Heck no, the actual counter-claim in both his cases was MUCH longer, luckily I kept a copy of my suggested counter claim for Henry Hippo (re his byelaws case) in my sent items on the pepipoo pm system.

    You will of course need to change dates/details/location/contravention to suit (yours is not Council owned) and it's only possible to counterclaim under the DPA, if the PPC got your data from the DVLA, not if YOU gave it to them in an early appeal (yes or no?).

    I have added in HH's own case by editing it in (it's the Slough case from March):




    PARTICULARS OF COUNTER-CLAIM


    1. The Defendant raising this counter-claim against the Claimant, is the registered keeper of the vehicle with the registration number xxxxxxx.

    2. (i) The Claimant in this original claim is a private parking company who are required to adhere to the International Parking Community's Code of Practice, which holds all members out for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998, as a 'data controller' in Section B (5): Data Processing: ''You are required to be registered with the Information Commissioner as a data controller.''

    (ii) This status as a data controller is reiterated by the DVLA in the KADOE contract, under which an Approved Operator parking firm (the party known to the DVLA as 'the Customer') obtain data, which states: ''The Customer, separately from the DVLA, shall be the Data Controller of each item of Data received from the DVLA from the point of receipt of that Data by the Customer or its Link Provider and shall be responsible for complying with the principles of the DPA in relation to its further Processing of that Data.''

    (iii) It follows that there is no question that this Claimant bears the responsibility of being a data controller in this matter.


    3. The Defendant in this original claim, being the registered keeper of the car in question, is the 'data subject' in this matter. The registration number of the vehicle, together with the Defendant's name and address details, all constitute personal data. this has been confirmed by the Information Commissioner in paragraph 6 of this specific report about private parking operators (to be filed with the Court in support of this Counter-Claim):

    https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/cons...onsultation.pdf


    4. It is common ground that the Defendant's vehicle was stopped at the side of the road at xxxxx xxxxx, a location owned by the City of London Corporation. At this location, as adduced in the Defence, local Byelaws apply, which include clauses relating to the parking of vehicles. This location falls under statutory control and it follows that is cannot be deemed 'relevant land' as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (the POFA).


    5.(i) The Claimant's operative photographed the vehicle, capturing and storing the VRN and an image of the vehicle, following which they obtained the Defendant's personal data, including name and address, from the DVLA. It is averred that, since the location is not 'relevant land', the Claimant had no grounds to pursue me as registered keeper. The purpose of such data being supplied to a parking firm in cases of 'non-relevant land', is only authorised by the DVLA for the basic reason of enquiring who was driving (no more and no less).

    (ii) A registered keeper has no obligation nor responsibility whatsoever, to supply the name and address of the driver (whether they know or not) and if they exercise their right not to name the driver then the matter ends there. A registered keeper cannot be pursued regarding a case relating to non-relevant land, because such land falls outwith the 'keeper liability' provision in the POFA.

    (iii) It follows that the data relating to the Defendant should not have been stored, nor further processed, after enquiring who was driving, even if the Court believes there was a lawful reason for the Claimant to obtain the data in the first place (which is denied, given the status of this land).


    6.(i) Due to the location being subject to Byelaws, the land in question cannot be operated or enforced as if it were private land.

    (ii) If the landowner wished to pursue the driver/owner under the local Byelaws,the correct route would have been for the City Of London to have issued a Penalty Charge, or Excess Charge under the applicable law, and the matter would have had to have been laid before Magistrates (in the case of a Byelaws breach).

    (iii) As such, due to the status of this location, this Claimant had no reasonable cause to obtain, nor to process, the Defendant's personal data for any reason, not even to enquire who was driving. There was no lawful excuse to issue a notice purporting to be a private 'Parking Charge Notice' at this specific 'non-private land' location, and this was a false instrument.


    7. It follows that this Claimant had no reasonable cause to use that VRN to obtain the Defendant's name and address. Significant distress has been caused as a direct result of this data processing, as well as loss of time and costs for defending this matter.

    7.1. Each demand that arrived in the post caused serious distress for the household, despite the honest belief that a registered keeper's data could not be used in this way by this Claimant, regarding this location. In forcing the Defendant to answer to the matter in court, serious distress has been caused which will be fully outlined in a Witness Statement and at the hearing. Indeed, being required to attend a hearing and working on a Defence and Counter-Claim in the Defendant's own time, has caused loss of leave.


    8. Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) indicates that Data may only be lawfully processed if one of the conditions set out in the Schedule applies to that processing. Those conditions are:

    (1) The individual whom the personal data is about has consented to the processing. and (5) The processing is necessary:
    (a) in relation to a contract which the individual has entered into; or because the individual has asked for something to be done so they can enter into a contract, or
    (b) The processing is necessary because of a legal obligation that applies to you (except an obligation imposed by a contract)
    (c) The processing is necessary to protect the individual's 'vital interests'. This condition only applies in cases of life or death, such as where an individual's medical history is disclosed to a hospital's A&E department treating them after a serious road accident.
    (d) The processing is necessary for administering justice, or for exercising statutory, governmental, or other public functions
    (e) The processing is in accordance with the 'legitimate interests' condition.

    None of the above apply.


    9. By reason of the obtaining and/or storing and processing the data, the Claimant acted in breach of its statutory duty under Section 4(4) of the DPA, in that it processed the personal data unfairly and/or unlawfully in contravention of the Defendant's rights under the First Data Protection Principle.


    10. Due to the nature of this location, which is neither 'relevant land' nor 'privately-owned' (despite the misleading sign), the Claimant's misappropriation, obtaining and processing of personal data about the Defendant was unlawful and/or in contravention of any or indeed all of the Data Protection Principles. Certainly, it is averred that the Claimant was in breach of the Second Data Principle, pursuant to Schedule 1 of the DPA, which states: !!!8220;Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.!!!8221;


    11. Further or alternatively, by pursuing the Defendant for monies which it was not entitled to recover, the Claimant has unlawfully infringed the Defendant's right to privacy and has misused the Defendant's private information.


    12. The Claimant is a member of the Trade Body known as the International Parking Community (IPC). In accordance with the Code of Practice as laid down by the IPC (such rules being held by the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as 'effectively regulatory') a parking operator ''shall comply'' with the statutory provisions of the DPA 1998. In this case, the Claimant has failed to comply with that statute, and is therefore operating in breach of the IPC Code of Practice.


    13. In consequence of the processing the Claimant has suffered damage and distress. Pursuant to s13 of the DPA, 'Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements', the Act states at 13(1) that 'An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage'.


    14. The Claimant relies on two binding authorities in support of the Claim, which are Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311, and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333. In Vidal-Hall, it was held by the Court of Appeal that compensation was payable upon the fact of breach, and that it was not necessary to quantify a direct pecuniary loss. In Halliday, the Court of Appeal held that a compensatory sum of up to £750 was deemed 'appropriate and sufficient'.


    15. Both of the above cases arose as a result of material breaches of the DPA by the respective defendants, and can be considered to provide binding precedents for my own situation. My claim is for £500, at the lower end of the scale and not a sum that appears excessive, given the circumstances of harassment and DPA breach by a Claimant pursuing a wholly vexatious claim and unreasonable three-figure sum.


    16. (i) A similar ruling was made by a District Judge at Liverpool County Court on 7 December 2016, in case no. C9DP2D6C, VCS v Mr. M. Also in Claim No D6GM2199 at the County Court at Bury Court: Civil Enforcement Ltd v Mr B, where District Judge Osborne accepted the argument about the DPA breach by a Parking Company who could not hold a registered keeper liable, yet still pursued that party. He accepted the tort of damages. He agreed £500 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.

    (ii) This industry's threatening pre-action letters were specifically criticised on 16th March 2018 at Slough in case D8HW7G7P, UK Parking Control v Mr S, where a £500 counter-claim was granted to the successful Defendant due to similar data protection breaches, at the same time as the original meritless parking charge claim was dismissed (transcript will be provided as evidence).

    (iii) The assertion that this land is 'privately owned' was misrepresented in the subsequent demands, which were issued unlawfully, unsupported by the Byelaws, purely calculated to make a profit for the Claimant as if contract law applied, when it did not and could not, at this location.

    iv) Ignorance of the law and status of the land being no excuse, given that the IPC Code of Practice states in Part B (9):

    Byelaws: 9.1 ''It is your responsibility to establish whether any land upon which you operate is subject to any Byelaws. Where land is subject to Byelaws you must ensure that your practices are in accordance with them or, alternatively, that you operate a scheme that is not prohibited by them''.



    PARTICULARS OF DAMAGE AND DISTRESS:


    17. As a result of the issuing of a private 'Parking Charge' by the Claimant, the Defendant, a Litigant in Person with no previous civil litigation experience, has suffered the quantifiable cost of postage and those travel and other costs for attending a hearing in due course, plus the loss of his own time, something which is not adequately covered by the limited costs awarded in the small claims court hearing. In addition there are non-pecuniary losses, not least being severely worried by the unwarranted demands, which to any untrained eye: impersonated authority, were written to cause alarm and to force payment from consumers, and which unreasonably escalated the sum and misled the Defendant about how a CCJ can be obtained. This series of threatening letters and the court claim have caused untold worry and distress to the Defendant and have caused a loss of family time and peace of mind that will never be reclaimed.


    THE COUNTER-CLAIM:

    18. (i) Damages in the sum of £500 for breach of statutory duty pursuant to Section 13(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 and/or misuse of private information.

    (ii) An order pursuant to Section 14(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the blocking and/or erasure and/or destruction of the data held by the Claimant, whether stored as digital data or otherwise and any photographs or other relevant material.

    (iii) It is averred that this Claimant's claim falls within the scope of exemplary/punitive costs. A sum of double the amount claimed is suggested as not unreasonable under the circumstances, however, the Judge is invited to use discretion to grant such costs in this case as are deemed warranted, pursuant to the ruling in Rookes v Barnard 1964 in that the conduct of this Claimant was unwarranted, wholly unreasonable, vexatious and indeed misleading, insofar as the law/byelaws issue is concerned and insofar as the status of the land is concerned. This operation being one which the Claimant knew or should have known, is prohibited under the Byelaws.



    STATEMENT OF TRUTH

    The Counter-Claimant believes that the facts stated are true.


    Signature ......................................


    Date .........
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • jrc123
    • By jrc123 9th Apr 18, 6:32 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 34 Thanks
    jrc123
    Wow thats looks very professional thank you.

    Yes i would take out the DPA part as you mentioned.

    So this i send the same time as my defence?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 6:35 PM
    • 61,501 Posts
    • 74,381 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes i would take out the DPA part as you mentioned.
    No, the entire counter claim only works well if they got your data from the DVLA, Did they not? If not, if you gave them your data in an appeal, you cannot claim under the DPA.

    That is a counter claim under the DPA.

    Maybe you can't, then?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,298Posts Today

7,767Users online

Martin's Twitter