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
    • keekstuff
    • By keekstuff 13th Jun 17, 6:10 PM
    • 23Posts
    • 16Thanks
    keekstuff
    Heath Parade NW9 again. NTK received. Ignore or appeal?
    • #1
    • 13th Jun 17, 6:10 PM
    Heath Parade NW9 again. NTK received. Ignore or appeal? 13th Jun 17 at 6:10 PM
    Hello again everyone.

    *** Update 12th Aug 2018 ***
    Well over a year since this first came up, we received a country court business center claim form (strangely, without receiving a Letter Before Claim, unless I misunderstood and this -IS- the letter before claim).

    Lots has happened to the site since the original post :
    - Council has taken over the layby
    - Forum Member AmonUK / zaklondon found that PCM never had authority of the freeholder!

    Although I am not sure how to file my defense just yet, as previous tickets never reached this far, I will read through some threads and am now in the process drafting up a defense based on:
    - Authority of the freeholder
    - improper signage
    - grace period
    - predatory tactics.


    *** Original Post from 13th Jun 2017***
    You helped me fight a parking ticket last year. I'm back again because of the infamous Heath Parade / PCM site. The more I find out about this site... .

    My partner stopped there for 3 minutes. No ticket was given, but we received the NTK from PCM. The timestamp on their photo evidence showed her back at the car 3 minutes after the alleged incident.


    I've trawled through the other threads and links and a bit confused whether to

    1) ignore until court papers come through (e.g. BMPA Insights / Parking Control Management)

    or

    2) start the appeal process (e.g. also via BMPA Insights, how to appeal.) I wonder if them failing at court recently will mean they get a bit weary about push-backs.


    Just thinking ahead, if we use the unnamed driver approach (IPC template appeal, newbie thread), I can't use PCM's own evidence against them, as it shows the driver back at the car.

    Thanks for helping me decide the first step.
    Last edited by keekstuff; 12-08-2018 at 1:20 AM. Reason: Update - Received a County Court Letter
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 13th Jun 17, 6:11 PM
    • 19,647 Posts
    • 24,942 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 13th Jun 17, 6:11 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Jun 17, 6:11 PM
    2)

    ie:- ALWAYS APPEAL to the PPC, never ignore , never reveal who was driving

    after that its IGNORE unless an LBC or an MCOL arrives

    frankly, I cannot believe they are still sc@mming at that site

    and the NEWBIES sticky thread explains all this
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 17, 6:13 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 13th Jun 17, 6:13 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Jun 17, 6:13 PM
    As it shows the driver, I would appeal as driver. In this case only.

    This is a scam site and a driver defendant, admitting they were driving but were not given a fair chance to read the terms before predatory PCM swooped, would be a decent defence (plus a few other usual defence points). So, forget replying as keeper, for this one.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Jun 17, 6:18 PM
    • 19,813 Posts
    • 31,289 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 13th Jun 17, 6:18 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Jun 17, 6:18 PM
    I was going to link you to Parking Prankster's blogs on Heath Parade, but there are so many of them I think it best if you just do a Google search on 'Parking Prankster Heath Parade' and read them all at your leisure. They will all help you.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • keekstuff
    • By keekstuff 14th Jun 17, 12:57 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    keekstuff
    • #5
    • 14th Jun 17, 12:57 PM
    • #5
    • 14th Jun 17, 12:57 PM
    Thanks everyone. Going ahead with appeal as driver. Re-reading newbie thread, parking prankster blog posts and the various threads here on MSE. Just wow!

    I'll be back with an update when I get one from them.
    • keekstuff
    • By keekstuff 12th Aug 18, 1:21 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    keekstuff
    • #6
    • 12th Aug 18, 1:21 AM
    • #6
    • 12th Aug 18, 1:21 AM
    Well, over a year since this first came up, we received a country court business center claim form (strangely, without receiving a Letter Before Claim, unless I misunderstood and this -IS- the letter before claim).

    Lots has happened to the site since the original post (Sorry no newbie links)
    - Council has taken over the layby
    - Forum Member AmonUK / zaklondon found that PCM never had authority of the freeholder!

    Assuming that I missed the boat on Practice Direction, I need to read up on best way to respond to these corut papers (previous tickets never reached this far). I will read through some threads and am now in the process drafting up a defense based on:
    - Authority of the freeholder
    - improper signage
    - grace period
    - predatory tactics.
    Last edited by keekstuff; 12-08-2018 at 1:38 AM. Reason: Clarifying LBC
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 12th Aug 18, 8:59 AM
    • 37,573 Posts
    • 84,514 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #7
    • 12th Aug 18, 8:59 AM
    • #7
    • 12th Aug 18, 8:59 AM
    Follow the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in post 2 of the NEWBIES. This will take you step by step through the process.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Aug 18, 12:16 PM
    • 9,894 Posts
    • 10,210 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 12th Aug 18, 12:16 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Aug 18, 12:16 PM
    Having received a Claim Form, the first thing you need to do is the Acknowledgement of Service as described in a dropbox file linked from that post that Fruitcake mentioned.

    That will buy you an extra fourteen days to prepare your Defence.

    What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?
    .
    • keekstuff
    • By keekstuff 13th Aug 18, 9:25 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    keekstuff
    • #9
    • 13th Aug 18, 9:25 AM
    • #9
    • 13th Aug 18, 9:25 AM
    10th August. I think the first 14 days applies to 5 days after the date stated, so I will first acknowledge and gain an extra 14 days to prepare Defence.

    Cheers guys!
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Aug 18, 10:37 AM
    • 10,246 Posts
    • 10,136 Thanks
    The Deep
    I cannot believe that they are going to court. There is so much evidence that this is a scam.

    Can you not call Mrs Sunglasses as a witness and question her on the instructions she has been given by her employers re mitigating losses.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Aug 18, 1:06 PM
    • 9,894 Posts
    • 10,210 Thanks
    KeithP
    With a Claim Issue Date of 10th August you have until Wednesday 29th August to do the AoS, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying that.

    Having done the AoS you then have until 4pm on Wednesday 12th September to file your Defence.
    .
    • keekstuff
    • By keekstuff 16th Aug 18, 2:22 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    keekstuff
    One crucial defence point I'm trying to put together is to challenge whether PCM had power to enter a contract in the first place, through authorisation from the land owner. Based on Sainsbury's address next to the lay by, I dug up a copy of the land registry (NGL931573) and it matches with zaklondon's post

    hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5578291&highlight=heath+parade&pa ge=3#57



    Although I have paid for a copy of the land registry through HM land registry site, it appears to not be admissible in court and refers to maps not available in the download.

    I am 3 links deep into www.gov.uk/get-information-about-property-and-land site to figure out how to request official copies, but I'm drowning in tabs. Is there a guide?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 16th Aug 18, 3:08 PM
    • 9,894 Posts
    • 10,210 Thanks
    KeithP
    Although I have paid for a copy of the land registry through HM land registry site, it appears to not be admissible in court and refers to maps not available in the download.

    I am 3 links deep into www.gov.uk/get-information-about-property-and-land site to figure out how to request official copies, but I'm drowning in tabs. Is there a guide?
    Originally posted by keekstuff
    Despite what it says, that Land Registry stuff is good enough for your purpose.
    .
    • keekstuff
    • By keekstuff 27th Aug 18, 4:12 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    keekstuff
    County Court Claim form from PCM, Glastones for Heath Parade
    If I understood the newbies thread properly, I am supposed to start a new thread to discuss my defence (Small Claim - start a new thread). Post #1 will be background info and I'll post my defence in Post #2.

    Background:
    - Post about original NTK
    hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5664076
    - Claim Issue Date of 10th August. AoS submitted. Have until Wednesday 12th September to file Defence.
    - Driver stopped at notorious Heath Parade (now taken over by the council)
    - The predatory 'Ms sunglasses' did not offer any help, just took photos.
    - Went into Sainsbury's to ask where to Park
    - Left after 2m 45seconds.
    - I am writing defence on behalf of driver and will be a 'lay representative' if it goes to court.


    Main defence points will be on

    1. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
    2. Insufficient Grace Period and Predatory Tactics
    3. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case

    Wondering whether i should include the usual distance contract defence.
    Last edited by keekstuff; 27-08-2018 at 4:21 PM. Reason: - Claim Issue Date of 10th August. AoS submitted. Have until Wednesday 12th September to file Defence.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Aug 18, 4:14 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The predatory 'Ms sunglasses' did not offer any help, just took photos.
    LOL, she wasn't there to help, was she?!

    Wondering whether i should include the usual distance contract defence.
    I wouldn't.
    • keekstuff
    • By keekstuff 27th Aug 18, 4:17 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    keekstuff
    In the County Court

    CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    Parking Control Management (UK) (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXX (Defendant)


    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    ________________________________________

    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
    2. Insufficient Grace Period and Predatory Tactics
    3. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case


    1. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist

    1.1 The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed.

    1.2 The Claimant’s signage with the largest font at this site states “No Customer Parking At Any Time”. A further sign with much smaller writing and higher up states “The loading bay is only for authorised vehicles actively loading & unloading when delivering to the commercial tenants of Heath parade”. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

    1.3 The above point was recently tested in the following court hearings:
    (i) County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that:

    “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”

    While this is a County Court decision and therefore not binding, it is on all fours with the present case and may be considered as persuasive. A full transcript of the Approved Judgment for the above case will be provided, in the event that this case proceeds to a hearing. #Note I have access to a copy through parking prankster

    (ii) County Court Clerkenwell & Shoreditch in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) v Ms C. (C1GF92FF, 31 May 2017)

    - The grace period was, according to the claimant's evidence, 3 minutes, which is not enough time to pull up, get out of the car, read the terms and leave.

    - Forbidding language on the signs - the largest sign saying NO CUSTOMER PARKING AT ANY TIME. This is echoed in the Claimant's sign.

    #Note I only have a reference to this case through parking prankster, no details of a full case, so may be risky. I cannot tell if a transcript or even a recording for transcription exists (e.g. through hxxps://www.gov.uk/apply-transcript-court-tribunal-hearing, without applying),

    1.4 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.

    1.5 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.

    1.6 The above point was recently tested in several cases regarding Hayes and Harlington station, where a comparable situation arose as the vehicles were charged for briefly stopping but the signs were at an elevated position in a distance too far to read from the vehicle.

    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 Parking Control Management (UK) were the Claimant in all cases they will be fully aware of the cases; C3GF46K8, C3GF44K8, C3GFY8K8.

    2. Insufficient Grace Period and predatory tactics

    2.1. It is understood that, based on logos on the signage, letters and statement on their website, that PCM (UK) is an approved operator with the Independent Parking Committee, IPC and thus a member of the scheme.

    2.2. The following quotes the IPC’s website:

    “The IPC’s Accredited Operator Scheme provides advice and support to its members. It is a scheme run for the private parking sector and members are able to gain conditional access to the DVLA Database of registered vehicle keepers under the terms of the IPC’s Accredited Trade Association (ATA) status thereby enabling them to enforce the parking charges that they impose.

    All members of the scheme are required to comply with the IPC Code of Practice which contains the need for every site, sign and many documents to be audited by the IPC.”

    2.3. Clause 15.1 of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) code of Practice states that

    “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.”


    2.4. Furthermore, clause 14.1 of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) code of conduct states that

    “You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.”

    2.5. A reasonable grace period would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping, in order to get out of the car, interpret the hard to read signs, make enquiries (#Went into Sainsbury’s to ask where to park) if necessary, before making an informed decision as to whether or not to park on the premises. Evidence provided by the Claimant shows time stamps between 13:55:30 – 13:58:15, and as requested by the defendant, based on the complete set of photographs taken (#First Appeal asked for ALL photographs to be provided, thus, considered all time stamps provided), the car stopped for 2 minutes and 45 seconds. This is well below a reasonable grace period. Thus, operator is in breach of clause 15.1 of the industry code of practice.

    2.6. The unmarked photographer and signage made no attempt to mitigate loss. Thus, the actions of the claimant and their signage are simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists or keeper can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention. This activity is bordering on, if not actually crossing the boundary of, a criminal offence of Fraud By False Representation and is in clear breach of clause 14.1 of the industry code of practice.

    2.7. Based on points 2.5 and 2.6 above, Claimant has breached 2 points of the industry code of practice, thereby making the DVLA search and subsequent invoicing unjustified.


    3. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case

    3.1 Clause 1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice

    “If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.”

    3.2 Thus, in order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent.

    3.3 It is believed the signage contains further clauses which show that the Claimant is acting as an agent of the landowner, not the principal, which are identical or similar to the following; ‘The site is PRIVATE LAND and is managed and operated by PCM (UK) Ltd’

    3.4 No evidence of such authority was supplied by the Claimant at any time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.

    #NOTE: In the correspondence, PCM have not stated that they operate on behalf of Genesis Housing Association, who are not the landowners of the layby at the time. So, although I have the land registry information, I cannot, based on info I have, demonstrate that they were unable to issue tickets, unless I reference other cases – I asked AmoUK for their court case details.



    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.



    (Signature, Date)
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 27th Aug 18, 5:32 PM
    • 3,290 Posts
    • 2,232 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Here is your link: -
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5664076


    It's just DEFENCE, not DEFENCE STATEMENT
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Aug 18, 8:50 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Easier for all of us to help you, if you get the two threads merged.

    Send a quick pm to a Board Guide, like Crabman or soolin.
    • Crabman
    • By Crabman 28th Aug 18, 2:49 PM
    • 9,708 Posts
    • 7,143 Thanks
    Crabman
    Threads have been merged.

    I'm a Board Guide on the Savings & Investments, ISAs & Tax-free Savings, Public Transport & Cycling, Motoring and Parking Fines, Tickets & Parking Boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Board Guides are not moderators & don't read every post. If you spot a contentious or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Aug 18, 10:58 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,673 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I cannot, based on info I have, demonstrate that they were unable to issue tickets, unless I reference other cases – I asked AmoUK for their court case details.
    That's fine because you don't have to demonstrate or evidence it yet. But your defence must allude to it.
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

452Posts Today

5,695Users online

Martin's Twitter