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
    • echo6
    • By echo6 23rd Dec 17, 8:01 PM
    • 39Posts
    • 20Thanks
    echo6
    IE Legal Total Parking Solutions
    • #1
    • 23rd Dec 17, 8:01 PM
    IE Legal Total Parking Solutions 23rd Dec 17 at 8:01 PM
    My son is a first year Uni Student, resident at the Swansea Bay campus. Is the registered keeper of the vehicle concerning three NtK PCNs which he ignored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    My assumption is that the POPLA appeals process is no longer valid in these circumstances?

    I will taking the issue up with the Universitie's Estates & Facilities Management regarding TPS.
    Last edited by echo6; 23-12-2017 at 9:43 PM.
Page 3
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Jan 18, 3:01 PM
    • 7,685 Posts
    • 7,400 Thanks
    KeithP
    Mr E, the images of the LBC that you have posted contain enough unredacted information to uniquely identify you and your three parking incidents to the claimant.

    Have you tried posting real live links recently?
    Last edited by KeithP; 07-01-2018 at 3:39 PM.
    .
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 7th Jan 18, 3:04 PM
    • 4,158 Posts
    • 5,895 Thanks
    Half_way
    Have you attempted to engage with the property manager???
    they could kill this dead, all you need is either a we dont support this being taken forward through the courts, and/or an outright cancellation
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • echo6
    • By echo6 7th Jan 18, 3:32 PM
    • 39 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    echo6
    Thanks, updated link, if beamerguy would be kind enough to update his links.
    • echo6
    • By echo6 7th Jan 18, 3:36 PM
    • 39 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    echo6
    Have you attempted to engage with the property manager???
    Originally posted by Half_way
    Yes, post #32 refers, and I have responded. awaiting a further reply.

    I'm also in the process of writing to Assembly Members at the Welsh Assembly Government.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Jan 18, 3:37 PM
    • 7,685 Posts
    • 7,400 Thanks
    KeithP
    Thanks, updated link, if beamerguy would be kind enough to update his links.
    Originally posted by echo6
    The last paragraph on the third page still identifies your unique events.
    .
    • echo6
    • By echo6 7th Jan 18, 3:51 PM
    • 39 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    echo6
    The last paragraph on the third page still identifies your unique events.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Thanks! Updated all to google drive links.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 7th Jan 18, 4:04 PM
    • 36,806 Posts
    • 83,282 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Latest update to the BPA CoP was just posted today.

    Version 7 January 2018

    hxxp://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Practice-and-Compliance-Monitoring
    Originally posted by echo6
    Just for clarity, the relevant CoP is the one that was in effect at the time of the alleged event, which would be version 6.

    Also, in addition to your other comments about ANPR, failing to state what the data will be used for is an ICO breach.
    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
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 7th Jan 18, 6:31 PM
    • 7,548 Posts
    • 10,035 Thanks
    beamerguy
    echo6
    "If any one is interested I have posted a video of the drive into the car park, twilight hours."

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wJ0ebTySOAnklGJYQls63kW6I60C1gGo/view?usp=sharing[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by beamerguy; 07-01-2018 at 7:01 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • echo6
    • By echo6 9th Jan 18, 6:04 PM
    • 39 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    echo6
    Two further letters received today, one a PRE-COURT NOTICE similar to the FINAL-DEMANDS for 110.

    The other letter in response to the one I wrote to them on the 27th. Mainly disagreeing with the points I raised.

    The following paragraph raised an eye brow from me, the previous point regarding POFA.

    Before we can deal with this point, as you are referring to a student parking permit,
    please confirm it was you / your son, who was in fact driving the vehicle. If a third party drove the vehicle, please identify them. Please don't expect to play silly games about this based on internet lawyers. We will ask your son in court (as no doubt will the judge) and it will be a contempt of court, punishable by up to two years imprisonment to give a false answer.
    You can refuse to answer if you wish, but then we would be entitled to ask the court to draw inferences, and you'd also annoy the judge which is not a good idea. Once you confirm the driver was the student permit holder, we can consider the other points your raise.
    I'm not sure if I should respond to this letter as I E Legal have already initiated the Pre Action Protocol.

    Oh! and they also pointed to this CCJ for one of their cases at Swansea

    hxxps://drive.google.com/open?id=18cp46aTqWsTX_kTAxvysQwcWL_FX3Ol4
    Last edited by echo6; 09-01-2018 at 6:13 PM.
    • echo6
    • By echo6 13th Jan 18, 9:07 PM
    • 39 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    echo6
    I will be responding to the letter, but there after will defer the solicitor to the Pre-Action Protocol as they initiated it. I still hold the view that the last letter is threatening and attempt at intimidation and coercion when quoting a case they won which contains no further details except for the outcome. I will complain on this point.

    Surprised that I have had no response here, and was hoping for some feedback, thoughts?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 13th Jan 18, 9:12 PM
    • 35,896 Posts
    • 20,134 Thanks
    Quentin

    Surprised that I have had no response here, and was hoping for some feedback, thoughts?
    Originally posted by echo6
    Have you seen how busy it is in here?
    • echo6
    • By echo6 13th Jan 18, 9:51 PM
    • 39 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    echo6
    Heck yes!....
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jan 18, 10:08 PM
    • 58,460 Posts
    • 71,967 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    ''Before we can deal with this point, as you are referring to a student parking permit, please confirm it was you / your son, who was in fact driving the vehicle. If a third party drove the vehicle, please identify them. Please don't expect to play silly games about this based on internet lawyers.

    We will ask your son in court (as no doubt will the judge) and it will be a contempt of court, punishable by up to two years imprisonment to give a false answer.

    You can refuse to answer if you wish, but then we would be entitled to ask the court to draw inferences, and you'd also annoy the judge which is not a good idea. Once you confirm the driver was the student permit holder, we can consider the other points your raise.''
    I do hate companies that threaten people, and mislead about court processes and their own status.

    What a pile of intimidating drivel that is, nasty trash, designed to remove the keeper's protection under the POFA.

    I can only recall ONE case where a poster on here or pepipoo said the clueless Judge asked them directly: 'were you driving?' Far more likely is a Judge saying 'where is the evidence of who was driving and/or evidence of keeper liability?', particularly in decent clued-up courts like Manchester and Skipton.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 13-01-2018 at 10:12 PM.
    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.

    • echo6
    • By echo6 13th Jan 18, 10:17 PM
    • 39 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    echo6
    He, yes he, as in the solicitor for this company backed this up by including a recent case they won in this jurisdiction. The google drive link provides a copy of what they included.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jan 18, 10:38 PM
    • 58,460 Posts
    • 71,967 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/18cp46aTqWsTX_kTAxvysQwcWL_FX3Ol4/view

    Well that's a misleading one, because it appears to include an extra 255 court fee over and above the usual 50. It also doesn't tell you what occurred to lead to this Order and vacating the December hearing, and it's rare to see an order to pay 50 per month in instalments.

    I am only guessing but it sounds like the PPC paid for a set aside or some other Order (fee 255) and then the victim got scared and offered 50 a month rather than face the hearing.

    Hardly a common example! Misleading drivel.

    I still hold the view that the last letter is threatening and attempt at intimidation and coercion when quoting a case they won which contains no further details except for the outcome. I will complain on this point.
    Yes, write to the solicitor asking why he is misleading litigants-in-person by showing an example of a very specifically out of the ordinary case, that included more than one PCN (the sum claimed shows that) plus a 255 court fee on top of the usual 50 (the 'fees' sum shows that) and seems to be a case where there was no defended hearing of the facts of the case, as the Order says it was vacated.

    Ask them to explain why they are disregarding their first duty which is to the court, and are abusing the pre-action protocol by failing to provide full details of their client's evidence, and instead threatening a keeper to divulge the driver's details (when the POFA only allows their client to 'enquire') effectively trying to pull the rug away from a registered keeper who is perfectly entitled in law, to defend the matter and rely on the protection offered in the POFA Schedule 4.

    The fact that a solicitor who certainly should know better, using this pre-action period to intimidate and mislead a Defendant instead of narrowing the issues, is something that you feel the SRA will be interested in, so you have formally reported their communications.

    And do so!
    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 14th Jan 18, 12:51 AM
    • 1,067 Posts
    • 2,064 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Coupon-mad is right. The order for payment is meaningless. If they want to provide you with details of a judgment they rely on, then they need to provide you with a copy of the judgment made in the proceedings (ie the basis for the decision) and/or a transcript. On its own it is meaningless.

    They can ask the court to be announced pope if they want, doesn't mean they'll get it. There is no basis to argue contempt or to invite any inference as yet. Something may be likely on balance of probability, but you are perfectly entitled to ask a claimant proves his case...
    "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.
    • echo6
    • By echo6 14th Jan 18, 10:11 AM
    • 39 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    echo6
    I just noticed something else. The letter is dated the 8th January, the pre-action protocol paper letter is dated the 3rd January. Both letters are fanklin stamped the 8th. Hmmm, doesn't seem right!
    Last edited by echo6; 14-01-2018 at 10:14 AM.
    • echo6
    • By echo6 14th Jan 18, 10:33 AM
    • 39 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    echo6
    I am only guessing but it sounds like the PPC paid for a set aside or some other Order (fee 255) and then the victim got scared and offered 50 a month rather than face the hearing.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Am I to assume the top right is the date for the hearing 1st December, as the Judgement order is dated 17th November 2017 on the bottom. Which I find confusing!
    • Castle
    • By Castle 14th Jan 18, 11:09 AM
    • 1,767 Posts
    • 2,392 Thanks
    Castle
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/18cp46aTqWsTX_kTAxvysQwcWL_FX3Ol4/view

    Well that's a misleading one, because it appears to include an extra 255 court fee over and above the usual 50. It also doesn't tell you what occurred to lead to this Order and vacating the December hearing, and it's rare to see an order to pay 50 per month in instalments.

    I am only guessing but it sounds like the PPC paid for a set aside or some other Order (fee 255) and then the victim got scared and offered 50 a month rather than face the hearing.

    Hardly a common example! Misleading drivel.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    The sum of 420 is exactly the same figure as you worked out in post 78 on this thread; what are the chances of that!
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5648451&page=4
    • echo6
    • By echo6 14th Jan 18, 11:35 AM
    • 39 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    echo6
    A copy of the PRE-COURT NOTICE

    hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1RtCefLg65qg5rLv0atQDWhJCJO796ZDi/view?usp=sharing
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

3,156Posts Today

8,066Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LaraLewington: ...and mine suggested I'd achieved a lifelong ambition of being sawn in half by a magician - at our wedding. Wasn't. Don?

  • We are working on it - I think BA has behaved awfully on this. Those flight were no obviously a glitch. It should? https://t.co/8pvtXtUEqi

  • RT @thenicolabryant: Absolutely. We need mental health and financial health as advocated my @MartinSLewis , to be taught in schools. So muc?

  • Follow Martin