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
    • manwyl
    • By manwyl 6th Nov 17, 12:15 PM
    • 54Posts
    • 39Thanks
    manwyl
    SCS Law & Smart Parking
    • #1
    • 6th Nov 17, 12:15 PM
    SCS Law & Smart Parking 6th Nov 17 at 12:15 PM
    Hi, your advice is requested as my head is spinning after reading through the sticky threads. I've not seen a set of circumstances exactly like below (including the POPLA part) but apologies if I've missed something. I'm not certain on the way to proceed but first I'll explain the background.

    8 months ago our car parked in a car park associated with a Matalan Store but not owned by the store. Matalan offer discounts for the parking cost to their customers. We did not buy anything from the Matalan store that day. They use ANPR cameras and parking machines which require the VRN to be entered. This was incorrectly entered due to some of the keys not working properly (although this has been denied by Smart) and due to being in a rush and the pressure of a queue forming behind. The VRN entered was very similar to the actual VRN. Smart have confirmed there is a payment on their system at the time for a vehicle with a very similar VRN that wasn't in the car park. In short, the correct payment was made but the wrong VRN was entered. Smart rejected an appeal based on the information above and we naively assumed that POPLA would consider the circumstances based on the details above but this too was rejected. We answered all the leading questions and I believe the driver was identified. I realise now that this was a big mistake and was a missed opportunity.

    Since then we have ignored all letters from Debt Recovery Plus until receiving a letter at the end of October from SCS Law (acting on behalf of Smart Parking Ltd) which declares it is an LBC. They are requesting payment of £170 via Debt Recovery Plus to settle the matter. I shall try to supply a link to view the redacted letter -

    dropbox.com/sh/b2c2u24qwppur58/AACTONoflX1KgrOLUgFi3iz6a?dl=0[/url]

    BTW - Matalan have stopped using Smart Parking due to the number of customer complaints.

    I'm unsure on how to proceed as we have shot ourselves in the foot with POPLA already. I'm not sure which advice to follow in case it now doesn't apply. It's such a minefield that we've considered just giving in but I guess this is what they're relying on. My instinct is to fight it but after the POPLA mistake I've lost confidence.

    Any assistance on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if any more information is required.

    Many thanks
    Last edited by manwyl; 06-11-2017 at 12:20 PM.
Page 6
    • manwyl
    • By manwyl 17th Apr 18, 5:48 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    manwyl
    Another reply received from SCS -

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tlo3kcuyrf87bgf/AADaT4_KWOcpqpy6zSZ2ujITa?dl=0

    Another 14 days apparently.....

    One thing I've noticed whilst reviewing what they've sent previously is they have sent a pdf of a sign claiming the car park is for matalan customers only -

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/qilms8tug8q66jg/Sign%20Warning.jpg?dl=0

    But there's no indication on the map where this sign lived or a real photograph of it. My guess is they slipped this one in by "mistake".

    Happy to tell them to go ahead. Permission to call their bluff or just ignore them now?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Apr 18, 10:41 PM
    • 17,607 Posts
    • 27,817 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    My view is to take the bull by the horns and try to bring this to a head. Tell them to do their worst so this Chinese water torture of ongoing threat can be ended. Time for them to put up or shut up.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 17th Apr 18, 11:14 PM
    • 7,342 Posts
    • 9,787 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I'm on the same page as Umkomaas

    Think why SCS keep offering you a deal, it's because
    they are unsure

    Play the game, tell them that no further correspondence
    will be sent by you and that you will now rely on the
    court to make a fair judgement and award costs in your
    favour.

    So far, this has cost SCS a lot of money, assuming that
    they work on the minimum wage which probably applies
    to low rent legals

    As the chances are now very high that SCS will be whooped
    in court again

    This hand of poker they are holding must now be called
    out as your hand is much stronger
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • manwyl
    • By manwyl 18th Apr 18, 6:25 AM
    • 54 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    manwyl
    I'm on the same page as Umkomaas

    Think why SCS keep offering you a deal, it's because
    they are unsure

    Play the game, tell them that no further correspondence
    will be sent by you and that you will now rely on the
    court to make a fair judgement and award costs in your
    favour.

    So far, this has cost SCS a lot of money, assuming that
    they work on the minimum wage which probably applies
    to low rent legals

    As the chances are now very high that SCS will be whooped
    in court again

    This hand of poker they are holding must now be called
    out as your hand is much stronger
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    Yes, it does make me wonder what they're hoping to gain because their costs must exceed the £170. Are they able/likely to try to increase this in court? If not, their motivation must be something else. If they are on a revenge mission they must be getting resistance from other victims of this scam. Maybe they hope to win one in court which they can use as a precedent to pressurise others into caving therefore making this far more valuable to them. The date of my alleged event being around the same week Matalan kicked them out may put me towards the front of the queue. They're probably trying to decide who is the weakest so they can increase their chances in court with them.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 18th Apr 18, 8:56 AM
    • 7,342 Posts
    • 9,787 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Yes, it does make me wonder what they're hoping to gain because their costs must exceed the £170. Are they able/likely to try to increase this in court? If not, their motivation must be something else. If they are on a revenge mission they must be getting resistance from other victims of this scam. Maybe they hope to win one in court which they can use as a precedent to pressurise others into caving therefore making this far more valuable to them. The date of my alleged event being around the same week Matalan kicked them out may put me towards the front of the queue. They're probably trying to decide who is the weakest so they can increase their chances in court with them.
    Originally posted by manwyl
    It's one of the mysteries as to why tin pot low rent legals
    work for peanuts. You will never find a REAL solicitor
    getting out of bed for such low amounts.

    However the way they conduct their business proves
    they are not professionals, far from it.
    These low rent bods are simply vindictive and the SRA
    should be disgusted with themselves for even allowing
    them to be members of this elite club.

    The £170 breaks down to a £100 ticket and £70 as
    a fake addon for debt collection.
    Courts are not very keem on fake addons

    The average claim including costs is about £230 and
    as it is a county court, what they can claim is restricted

    As said, close down the conversation with them and
    if they do take court action, you will have all the
    experience on this forum to beat them anyway

    As said, "a fool and his money is easily parted", that's
    what these low renters do with their eyes wide open

    Don't forget to watch BBC1 Watchdog tonight at 8pm
    The Prankster will explain about ANPR
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 18th Apr 18, 11:55 AM
    • 2,491 Posts
    • 3,039 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Respond back, invinting them to submit a claim based on signage that doesnt even exist at the site in question. You will move for a strike out before the claim is allocated to any track, meaning they will be liable for your full costs.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 19th Apr 18, 10:11 AM
    • 1,031 Posts
    • 1,991 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Respond back, invinting them to submit a claim based on signage that doesnt even exist at the site in question. You will move for a strike out before the claim is allocated to any track, meaning they will be liable for your full costs.
    It's likely the claim will be allocated for the purposes of hearing the application, so I wouldn't make that assumption....
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • manwyl
    • By manwyl 25th Apr 18, 9:51 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    manwyl
    I don't think I'll be responding to them anymore. They're time wasters and I've said all I need to so far. Happy to see them in court, if they dare, because I will be submitting a counter claim.

    I'll let you know if I hear anything else. Thanks for all your help everyone
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 25th Apr 18, 10:19 PM
    • 17,607 Posts
    • 27,817 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Happy to see them in court, if they dare, because I will be submitting a counter claim.
    If you feel you have a strong counterclaim against them, issue it as soon as possible as part of your AOS, then they know they can't withdraw and the routes open to them are pay the counterclaim, defend at court or face a default judgment and CCJ. Then you involve their ATA if the CCJ is not paid!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • manwyl
    • By manwyl 5th May 18, 12:58 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    manwyl
    Hi guys, we received a County Court Claim Form today. I can scan and share it on here if that's ok? So, the fun and games begin.....
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th May 18, 1:34 AM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,073 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    We don't need to see a claim, they are all the same!

    Read the NEWBIES thread, do the AOS online and show us your defence and a counterclaim if you so wish.
    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.

    • manwyl
    • By manwyl 11th May 18, 9:53 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    manwyl
    Hi all. Sorry for the delay replying. It's been a busy week.

    AOS online has been completed.

    I have started to draft my defence. I've read through the newbies thread and looked at the various links. There are a couple that look similar to my circumstances so I've picked out the parts I think that are relevant and merged them together.

    Please ignore the numbering for now. I'll tidy it all up at the end.

    The parts I feel this doesn't cover is -

    1. we bought a ticket
    2. the car park isn't just for Matalan customers
    3. making a counterclaim

    Your advice and suggestions, as always, are very welcome

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: ___

    Between:

    Smart Parking Limited v ___

    Defence Statement

    I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.

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

    1. The Claim Form issued on the ____ by Smart Parking Limited was not
    correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by Smart Parking Limited Claimant’s Legal Representative
    4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
    a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
    c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    (ii) Non-existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (iii) It is believed the signage and 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 by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    6. No locus standi - In order to issue 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. Smart Parking has taken no steps to provide evidence that such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

    7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Smart Parking do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. 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.


    8. Even if the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the Claimant in this case. When Smart Parking, all too often at this location, unfairly ticket a patron of Matalan, any commercial justification in the form of support by Matalan for such unfair ticketing is absent.

    9. 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.

    10. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    11.1 If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (i.e. the tariff), identified as completely different from the complex 'free parking licence' arrangement in Beavis.

    11.2 Where loss can be quantified, the 'complex' and 'completely different' Beavis decision is inapplicable, as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius, A0JD1405 at Wrexham County Court.

    11.3 At the Court of Appeal stage in Beavis, pay-per-hour car parks were specifically held by those Judges (in findings not contradicted in the Supreme Court later) as still being subject to the "penalty" rule, with the potential for the charge to be held to be wholly disproportionate to the tariff, and thus unrecoverable. In other words, charging £100 for a period of time for which the 'agreed and published' tariff rate is £1/hour, would be perverse, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and not a matter that the courts should uphold.

    Data Protection Act and BPA Code of Practice breach
    8. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach.
    8.1. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.
    8.2. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:

    i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

    ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

    iii) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR, together with a ticket machine requiring manual vehicle registry number entry as a secondary data processing system at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine patrons), and
    iv) Failure to consider the number of complaints from Matalan and other businesses, which would have alerted this Claimant to the fact that their 'system' and woeful signs were not being seen by all genuine patrons and was therefore a wholly inappropriate method of data capture, which was unreliable at best and negligent (or even deliberately misleading) at worst, being the main cause of unfair parking charges against Matalan patrons, and

    v) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and the ticket machine system and how the data captured on both would be used, and

    vi) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.

    9. This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations and has breached principle 1 (at least) of the DPA, as well as the BPA Code of Practice.

    Unlawful conduct/data use and breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
    10. In a similar instance of DPA failure by excessive and inappropriate use of ANPR cameras - confirmed on this Claimant's Trade Body (BPA) website in a 2013 article urging its members to comply - Hertfordshire Constabulary was issued with an enforcement notice. The force were ordered to stop processing people's information via ANPR until they could comply. The Information Commissioner ruled that the collection of the information was specifically illegal; breaching principle one of the DPA.

    11. The Court's attention will be drawn to the case of Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes). Whilst not wholly aligned to the issues in this case, it is on all fours with the above point, because of the principle it extols that no one should profit from their unlawful conduct. Paragraph 20 of the Transcript of that case states: ''It is common ground that, whatever costs may be recoverable by a litigant in respect of professional services such as those provided by Tenon to the appellant, they cannot include the cost of any activities which are unlawful''. Paragraph 28 continues - ''...cannot on any view recover the cost of activities performed by Tenon which it was not lawful for them to perform.''
    11.1. Further, in RTA (Business Consultants) Limited v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015), at paragraph 34 the Judge discusses the relevance of the public law principle going back well over 200 years, that no man should profit from his crime; it is submitted that this is particularly relevant in this action. The Judge cited Lord Mansfield CJ to explain that: ''The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If [...] the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff.''

    12. Even if there was a purported contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (due to non-compliance with the ICO requirements at the outset, before enforcement started using ANPR systems at this site).
    12.1. Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under that contract, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced.
    12.2. To add weight, the Defendant also cites from ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338. Whilst the facts of that case differ, due to the arguments between the two commercial parties, the Judge's comments at paragraph 29 of the Transcript of Somerfield are of importance, where he discussed ParkingEye's misleading letters to consumers, whereby they had committed the tort of deceit. : ''At common law, historically, a distinction has been drawn between cases where the guilty party intended from the time of entering the contract unlawfully and cases where the intention to perform unlawfully was only made subsequently''. Laws LJ, in Somerfield, concluded that ParkingEye did not set out to deceive consumers before they signed the contract with Somerfield, so the contract was upheld in that case.
    12.2.1. Differently in this case, it is asserted that the Claimant did deliberately or negligently break the DPA. Being a BPA member with access to a wealth of ICO and DVLA-led data compliance information, relevant articles, compliance events and specific parking & DPA related legal advice for members, and given that this Claimant has its own in-house Legal Team and solicitors, it cannot justify nor plead ignorance to excuse their conduct in failing to meet their legal obligations both before enforcement and by way of regular evaluations to avoid just this sort of data abuse.
    12.2.2. At paragraphs 65-74 of the Somerfield transcript, Laws LJ set out three factors which need to be considered in a defence of illegality. The Defendant submits that the key issues in this action are that:
    (i) the commission of an illegal wrong being present at the time of entering the contract means that the Claimant will not be able to enforce the contract.
    (ii) the illegality is central to the contract and is not merely a minor aspect, thus it should not be held to be too remote so as to render the contract enforceable.
    (iii) the nature of the illegality: in this case it was a breach of legal obligations regarding data, and not merely a civil tort as in Somerfield. The gravity of the illegality is therefore far greater.

    13. The Defendant avers that a breach of the DPA and failure to comply with ICO rules regarding data captured by ANPR, also transgresses the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (enacted after the final hearing in Beavis and not considered in that case).
    13.1. The excessive, inappropriate and unjustified use of ANPR alongside a flawed ticket machine system by this claimant is both unfair and lacking in transparency for an average consumer and as such, this claim must fail.

    Unconscionable and unrecoverable inflation of the 'parking charge'
    14. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
    14.1. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, ParkingEye Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary because the in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

    15. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. In Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the sum was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to already include a significant sum in profit; being a pre-set sum dressed up as a fee or charge agreed in contract. This was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime, and it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, and would have failed.
    15.1. Similarly, in Somerfield a £75 parking charge was not held to be a penalty but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.

    16. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

    I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


    Name/signature

    Date
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th May 18, 12:56 AM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,073 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Defence
    Statement

    I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.
    Above, it's a DEFENCE not a defence statement and you do not put your address.

    Technically the court rules say you should put your date of birth but no-one here ever does!

    8. Even if the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the Claimant in this case. When Smart Parking, all too often at this location, unfairly ticket a patron of Matalan, any commercial justification in the form of support by Matalan for such unfair ticketing is absent.
    More to the point, Smart's contract was ended across the UK several months ago, so this case is clearly a 'revenge claim' and has no 'legitimate interest' excuse in pursuing it to court, distinguishing it from Beavis.
    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.

    • manwyl
    • By manwyl 15th May 18, 8:53 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    manwyl
    Thank you for the amendments. I have made these to my draft.

    Does anyone have any advice for the following points? Many thanks

    1. we bought a ticket
    2. the car park wassn't just for Matalan customers
    3. making a counterclaim
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 18, 10:54 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,073 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    What's the counter claim for? Not your costs.

    DPA data breach?
    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.

    • manwyl
    • By manwyl 15th May 18, 11:07 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    manwyl
    In my last letter to them I explained the following (which is completely true) -

    "I will not be replying again but I will be keeping a record of this unwarranted harassment in pursuit of a meritless 'parking charge' that has none of the elements of legitimate interest that saved the Beavis case charge from falling foul of the penalty rule. The continued unfair demands are causing significant distress (distress to my family, insomnia, spending hours researching the law and replying to your letters, losing precious family time, upset & disagreements within the family about whether to just pay the scam to make it go away)."

    But if I can claim for my time spent dealing with this along with DPA data breach then why not - I'm happy to claim whatever is available. These thieves need teaching a lesson.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 16th May 18, 8:28 AM
    • 2,491 Posts
    • 3,039 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    No, yuo cannto claim for costs. YOuve been told that. Costs of a claim are dealt with WITHIN the claim.

    What you can do is harassment, DPA breach etc.
    • manwyl
    • By manwyl 16th May 18, 10:50 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    manwyl
    The counter-claim looks like a very complicated process. I doubt I have the time to do it justice and don't want to waste anyone's valuable time on here.

    So I guess the only points that remain are -

    1. we bought a ticket
    2. the car park wasn't just for Matalan customers

    Please can someone suggest the best way to incorporate this information into my defence?

    Thank you
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th May 18, 11:07 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,073 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Just draft something and you will get comments; we almost never write from scratch.
    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.

    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 17th May 18, 9:14 AM
    • 1,031 Posts
    • 1,991 Thanks
    Johnersh
    To misquote the late, great, Michael Hutchence and INXS:

    Simplify
    Simplify for me
    Simplify
    Simplify when you plead...

    There's A LOT of boilerplate guff in that defence. Here you've got an argument thats about as strong as it gets - you paid didn't you? In such circumstances, were it my case, I would abandon a technical POFA defence and go with something much clearer (and easier to argue). Others may disagree, but I think this is a quite different case to the norm.

    You need to draft this as a direct response to the particulars (currently ignored). If the PoC don't tell the story, then you should. In particular you need to rely on the pre-action admission that they received payment for a car not in the car park, with a bloody similar registration to yours. This leads you neatly to the misquoted Black Eyed Peas defence "where is the loss?"

    Try again and we can play with that. Clear out a lot of the case references, but leave in Beavis - the point is that the penalty rule was engaged (but no penalty found) in that case, here they want £100 for a typo that manual cross referencing has identified even before proceedings were issued. It's unconscionable.

    The place for oodles of case references (if needed) is your skelly not the defence - explain your case, not everyone else's!

    That is all. Apologies if those songs now go round your head for the rest of the day
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
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

194Posts Today

2,785Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin