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
    • fisherp123
    • By fisherp123 7th Jan 18, 7:59 PM
    • 31Posts
    • 6Thanks
    fisherp123
    Metro Inn, Walsall
    • #1
    • 7th Jan 18, 7:59 PM
    Metro Inn, Walsall 7th Jan 18 at 7:59 PM
    Hi Everyone. I hope you can help me. This story is a little long-winded. I'll try to be clear as I can.

    On 08/11/2017 I received a letter from ZZPS about an alleged parking offence (PCN), which took place on 25/07/2017. ZZPS is obviously the debt collection company. I have not received any other correspondence before this letter, no NTK.

    I responded to them by email, as the vehicle in question was registered at the wrong address.

    Your Client: Civil Enforcement Ltd
    PCN: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Vehicle: xxxxxxxxxxx
    Location: Metro Inn, Birmingham Road, Walsall, WS5 3AB
    Issue Date: 27/07/2017
    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I refer to your Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) Ref. xxxxxxxxxxxxx

    I confirm that at the time of this alleged incident, I was the vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA 2012”).

    I Must also inform you that you must write to me at a different address; I no longer live at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Further correspondence should be sent to:-
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Further:
    I received no Notice to Keeper at all and have no information about the issue.
    I require ZZPS to supply all photos and copies of all correspondence to me at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Shortly after this email, I received a letter stating that their computer records have now been updated and further correspondence will be sent to the correct address. They said that their client has the photos and I would not be getting any copies unless of litigation .

    This matter has now been passed along to QDR solicitors (Quantum Debt Recovery??) who has raised the outstanding balance and is threatening a CCJ.

    I am wondering how to respond to this matter. Can anyone advise me? I have read the MSE newbies thread, but template letters advise what to do before a solicitor gets involved. I wondered about using this template:

    Dear {name of IPC member - only IPC members for this version!!!}

    Re PCN number:

    I am the keeper of the vehicle and am aware of your purported 'parking charge'. The driver will not be identified. I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:

    1. Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
    2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
    3. Please provide photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver.
    4. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
    5. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.

    Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs, which would be a thinly-veiled attempt at 'double recovery'. I will not respond to debt collectors and to involve a third party would be a failure to mitigate your costs as well as deliberate and knowing misuse of my data.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause (e.g. if you do not fully comply with the IPC Code of Practice in terms of signage at this site, as seems likely based on my research) please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me. I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle.

    I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,
Page 3
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Aug 18, 12:57 PM
    • 8,571 Posts
    • 8,439 Thanks
    KeithP
    http://i65.tinypic.com/1zwovg7.jpg

    To me, that is a 'forbidding sign'.

    It offers nothing. Therefore it cannot form the basis of a contract.

    Also the £100 charge is far from prominent.
    .
    • fisherp123
    • By fisherp123 9th Aug 18, 3:15 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    fisherp123
    Thank you. I'll put something together with these points and post here as soon as I can. Many thanks indeed!
    • fisherp123
    • By fisherp123 10th Aug 18, 6:37 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    fisherp123
    Hello, would someone kindly look at this 'distilled defence' as requested by Walsall HM Courts. It needs to be submitted by 4pm 14/08/2018
    Thank you in advance.


    IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WALSALL
    Claim No.: xxxxx
    Between
    CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
    -and-
    xxxxx (Defendant)
    xx August 2018
    __________

    DEFENCE
    __________

    As previously stated to Civil Enforcement Limited (xx/xx/2017), I confirm that at the time of this alleged incident, I was the vehicle!!!8217;s registered keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (!!!8220;POFA 2012!!!8221.
    * In no way is the Defendant declaring himself as the driver of the vehicle. *

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
    2. The Defendant received no !!!8216;Notice to Keeper!!!8217; letter. The Claimant then raised their £100 parking charge to £200. It is submitted that this is merely a tactic to extract 'double money', and the Defendant is in any case not liable.
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41



    Please view the signage, used at the location:

    [sign inserted here - see post #40]


    I wish to make the following points:
    - It is a forbidding sign.
    There is no offer to park. Therefore it cannot form the basis of a contract. The offer of parking is only made to permit holders and only permit holders could therefore be bound by any contract.

    - This is clear from several cases. In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.

    - In UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.

    - In Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.

    Lack of Prominence.
    If the driver did not see the sign then the sign is not prominent. The charge of £100 is far from prominent.

    o The BPA code of Practice Section 18 states that signs must be placed at the entrance to the car park and throughout the car park in a strictly prescribed format. This covers things such as the size of the sign, the size of the text and the text content itself.

    o The way it is written suggests the rules are non-negotiable, such as; "you must also have a standard form of entrance sign" and "signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm".

    o The Defendant contests the validity of these signs. Not prominent and missed.




    Other Notes:

    1. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant!!!8217;s position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the legitimate interest in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

    2. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sums to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

    3. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

    Statement of Truth

    I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

    ;...
    (Defendant)

    .
    (Date)
    Last edited by fisherp123; 11-08-2018 at 9:05 AM.
    • fisherp123
    • By fisherp123 13th Aug 18, 9:49 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    fisherp123
    Last day today
    Hello, I know many of you are enjoying the school holidays with your family. I just wanted to let you know that I will be submitting the letter above later today or tomorrow (4pm latest).
    I will let you know if it was enough to overt the large fine they are trying to impose.
    Thanks for your help in this regard.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Aug 18, 10:34 AM
    • 9,964 Posts
    • 9,752 Thanks
    The Deep
    It is not a fine, it is an invoice with which you do not agree.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • fisherp123
    • By fisherp123 13th Aug 18, 10:46 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    fisherp123
    A fine
    Is that all I will need to state to the judge?
    Surely it cannot be this simple?
    I have to get this 'distilled defence' sent to the court before 4pm tomorrow.
    I have already stated that there is no admission as to who was driving and that CEL should not pursue a claim against the Owner of the vehicle.

    The sign is a forbidding sign. No offer to non residents of the hotel. The sign was also missed by the driver ie not prominent.
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

186Posts Today

2,697Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin