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
    • LoneStarState
    • By LoneStarState 11th Jan 18, 10:05 PM
    • 17Posts
    • 16Thanks
    LoneStarState
    Britannia Parking PCN Portswood Centre, Souhtampton
    • #1
    • 11th Jan 18, 10:05 PM
    Britannia Parking PCN Portswood Centre, Souhtampton 11th Jan 18 at 10:05 PM
    Hi All,
    I’ve read the newbie thread and would just like some pointers before lodging an appeal for overstaying by 17 minutes at the Portswood Centre car park in Southampton (managed by Britannia Parking). I’ve read a few appeals now (and some ongoing) for this car park and the PPC across this forum and pepipoo. Great effort in compiling all the helpful info.
    Notice was posted to relative who is the RK. It was at night with the car park poorly lit with woefully inadequate signage. Driver has not been disclosed (and will not be). I plan to submit a soft appeal using the BPA member template, just wanted to know if the below could be considered not complying with POFA? Also should I bother including the DVLA/keeper paragraph in the BPA template seeing as postal charge notice was served (no window). I guess I should just keep it in as it will probably be just a generic response from BP anyways and the first appeal is only going to go one way.
    The Charge notice initially states in the largest lettering that payment of £100.00 is to be made within 28 days but then contradicts itself by mentioning 29 days two consecutive times after on the front page of the charge notice. See extract below.

    “Parking Charge Amount Due £100.00
    Payment to be made within 28 Days of issue
    The parking charge is discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days of the date of issue
    After 29 days the full parking charge amount is due
    Contravention: Parked longer than the maximum time permitted
    Entry Details: -
    Exit Details: -

    Later POFA paragraph on front page:
    You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the drivers name of current address, and if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them.
    You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given, the Parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under the schedule 4 of that Act.”

    Would this discrepancy be worth including at the second stage of appeal (I’m on the yes side)? If so I would likely be including the following points at a POPLA appeal:

    1. Inadequate signage – using info posted on newbie thread plus photo evidence
    2. Contradictory Non POFA PCN (28 or 29 days to pay, make your mind up?)
    3. No evidence of landowner authority.
    4. Mention of grace periods IF the signage was adequate to begin with in the poorly lit carpark at night time (referring to BPA COP).
    Fortunately I have a relative in Southampton who was also invoiced (and planning to appeal) and lives in close proximity to the car park and so should be able to provide ample photo evidence particularly of poor signage on entry in the dark.
    Once again, thank you for all the effort put into this forum.
    Any other pointers let me know. Look forward to Britannia’s rejection and the ensuing POPLA appeal. Will post second stage appeal drafts on this thread. Thank you for your time.
    Last edited by LoneStarState; 09-09-2018 at 11:52 AM.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Jan 18, 10:42 PM
    • 19,291 Posts
    • 24,530 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 11th Jan 18, 10:42 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Jan 18, 10:42 PM
    change the blue text appeal by adding 6 characters to that paragraph making it into the past tense

    Should you have obtained

    it really is that simple, then submit it as KEEPER

    use each and every point you possibly can in the POPLA APPEAL , including

    NO LANDOWNER CONTRACT
    POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
    any BPA CoP failures
    GRACE PERIODS
    any NTK failures
    any POFA2012 FAILURES
    not the same as BEAVIS

    etc
    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
    • LoneStarState
    • By LoneStarState 15th Mar 18, 9:20 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    LoneStarState
    • #3
    • 15th Mar 18, 9:20 PM
    • #3
    • 15th Mar 18, 9:20 PM
    Just a small bump to update on the progress of appeal.

    First appeal was made and rejected (unsurprisingly) with a letter that included the ANPR photos and signs from a different car park and not signs from the actual Portswood Centre car park.

    Additionally Britannia incorrectly stated in the letter that the grace period for the car park was 10 minutes, wrongly lumping the grace period allowed for locating signs, locating parking space and reading the poorly written terms and conditions, with the minimum 10 minutes grace period to leave at end of parking.

    Bit behind on the POPLA appeal draft but slogging away. Should be a beautiful bulky document once finished.
    • LoneStarState
    • By LoneStarState 15th Mar 18, 9:38 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    LoneStarState
    • #4
    • 15th Mar 18, 9:38 PM
    • #4
    • 15th Mar 18, 9:38 PM
    One more question I forgot to ask. Can you upload multiple documents to the POPLA website or will it have to be one single beast of a document?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Mar 18, 9:42 PM
    • 61,752 Posts
    • 74,662 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 15th Mar 18, 9:42 PM
    • #5
    • 15th Mar 18, 9:42 PM
    You WANT it to be one beast of a document with pictures. NOT lots of uploads.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • LoneStarState
    • By LoneStarState 11th May 18, 12:12 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    LoneStarState
    • #6
    • 11th May 18, 12:12 AM
    • #6
    • 11th May 18, 12:12 AM
    Unfortunately POPLA appeal rejected in what I thought was quite an amusing decision that would require a fair bit of cherry picking of the appeal. I'll post the decision in the POPLA appeal decision thread also.
    Anyways as a summary here is a skeleton of the appeal I submitted:

    Grace periods: the alleged "overstay" of 17 minutes fell within allowable grace periods as given in the BPA COP v6, particularly when the ANPR cameras do not accurately capture start and end of a parking period, merely entry and exit to site, and also the car park signage would not have been able to be read from where the driver parked.

    Inadequate signage, particularly at night, where entrance signs are not retroreflective and not directly lit, and repeater signs that were lit, but totally unreadable from where parked, including sum for breach.

    Signs give inadequate notice of what ANPR data will be used for, particularly the commercial intent of the cameras.

    No evidence of period parked: NtK does not meet POFA 2012 requirements

    No evidence individual it is pursuing is the driver liable for the charge

    No evidence of landowner authority

    No planning permission for pole mounted ANPR camera and no advertising consent for signage.

    And without further ado here is the "independent" POPLA assessment:

    POPLA assessment and decision
    26//04//2018

    Verification Code
    XXXXXXXXXX
    Decision Unsuccessful

    Assessor Name Safoora Sagheer

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator's case is that the appellant parked longer than the maximum
    time permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case:

    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal such as: Grace period. Entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs are not prominent are not clear. The signs fail to warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for. No evidence of period parked. Notice to keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. No evidence of landowner authority. No planning permission. To support the appeal, the appellant has provided POPLA with a copy of the parking charge, the initial rejection letter and photographs of the signage.

    Assessor supporting rational (sic) for decision
    In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant's vehicle is, so I must consider PoFA 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant.

    When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state "Maximum Stay 2 Hours. THIS CAR PARK IS REGULARLY CONTROLLED BY MOBILE ENFORCEMENT TEAMS. £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to vehicles which: Exceed the maximum stay period."

    The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant's vehicle entering the site at 17:19pm and exited the site at 19:36pm. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant's vehicle remained on site for a total of two hour and 17 minutes. I note the appellant's comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we consider the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. Based on the evidence provided, I can only see one entrance and one exit for vehicle registration XXXX XXX. Therefore, in this case I conclude that the charge was issued correctly.

    Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, "If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges". After reviewing the operator's evidence, it has provided sufficient written authorisation of the landowner confirming it can operate on the land in question.

    Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states"you should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes". As the appellant exceeded the maximum stay period by 17 minutes, I do not consider this to be a reasonable grace period to exit the car park. Therefore, I will not be applying grace periods in this appeal.

    I note the appellant's comments however, I can see from the photographic evidence of the signage that there is an ANPR icon on every sign. Furthermore, the signage states "By entering this private car park, you consent, for the purpose of car park management to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and/or by the attendant and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided by you or others via the payment or permit systems". Therefore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice which states "Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for". In the BPA Code of Practice, section 18.3 "signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving." Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice also explains, that signs "must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand." I consider that the photographic evidence show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA by displaying clear and sufficient signage throughout the car park in clear view to motorists. The entrance signage is also clear and sufficient.

    The appellant also states that there is no planning permission from Southampton City Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR camera and no advertising consent for signage. However, this would not be relevant to the appeal and would have no bearing to my decision. The onus is on the appellant to ensure they do not exceed the maximum stay period on site. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant suspected that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site. I conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
    Last edited by LoneStarState; 09-09-2018 at 7:01 PM. Reason: remove unnecessary punctuation marks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 18, 12:17 AM
    • 61,752 Posts
    • 74,662 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 11th May 18, 12:17 AM
    • #7
    • 11th May 18, 12:17 AM
    In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate.
    Not true:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74261934#post74261934
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • LoneStarState
    • By LoneStarState 11th May 18, 12:34 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    LoneStarState
    • #8
    • 11th May 18, 12:34 AM
    • #8
    • 11th May 18, 12:34 AM
    Cheers CM! Reckon that statement is a regular copy and paste job by most POPLA assessors.

    Will definitely consider writing to POPLA about this and the other failures in the assessor's decision, notably:

    willfully ignoring that there are two grace periods in order to discount the grace period point made by the apellant, particularly as operators are mandated by the BPA CoP to heed these grace periods.

    Claiming the signs were adequate based on the operator evidence even though alleged contravention occurred at night and the operator photos are ALL in the daytime (including photos labelled "night time" when it is clearly day and the timestamps show the photos as being taken just before 2pm!). In fact the assessor makes no mention of the time of day in their adjudication even though it was specifically mentioned several times in the appeal as to why the signage was not seen.

    The claims about ANPR as above (what even is an "ANPR" icon anyways? It's just a camera icon and that does not show any commercial intent). Also, if the photo evidence was taken into account then the assessor would know that there aren't ANPR icons on the entrance signs.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 18, 12:41 AM
    • 61,752 Posts
    • 74,662 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 11th May 18, 12:41 AM
    • #9
    • 11th May 18, 12:41 AM
    Reckon that statement is a regular copy and paste job by most POPLA assessors.
    Yes it is, but by enough people quoting Steve Clark's email quoting it and saying it's not true, POPLA will have to stop using it.

    Certainly make a similar complaint about that error as per the linked thread within a link that I showed you, by actually copying Mr Clark's email and making POPLA read it.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 18, 1:13 PM
    • 61,752 Posts
    • 74,662 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Here is an email from John Gallagher Lead Adjudicator (not obtained by me, but by a hard-working PPC fighting contact):



    You highlight that our assessors have incorrectly referenced that the BPA completes audits of ANPR technology. The BPA Code of Practice (21.3) sets out that operators need to ensure the cameras are in good working order, that the data captured is accurate and securely held, and that the BPA's compliance team may audit the systems operators have in place.

    Although the BPA Code of Practice sets out that it may audit the systems operators have in place; the BPA does not complete technical checks on the cameras. I am sorry for the misleading wording in some of our assessor's decisions. We have provided advice to our team on this point today.

    You suggest we operate a reverse burden of proof in relation to the correct operation of ANPR cameras. Where an appellant disputes the accuracy of ANPR; we would expect the operator to rebut this reason for appeal. We consider the evidence provided by both parties and make a decision using a standard of proof of balance of probability. If an appellant has not qualified their claim, photographs showing the ANPR was working may meet that standard of proof and be sufficient to rebut the reason for appeal. If an appellant provides a more detailed appeal - for example evidence they were elsewhere - the operator might need to provide more persuasive evidence to rebut the reason for appeal.

    In weighing up our decisions, we do consider relevant research, such as the attached independent research by the Home Office on ANPR, which highlights that in general use; ANPR is 'remarkably accurate' - while pointing out that there is scope for error.

    ...

    Kind Regards,

    John Gallagher

    Lead Adjudicator
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 11-05-2018 at 2:08 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th May 18, 1:59 PM
    • 19,501 Posts
    • 30,844 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Also not to forget that the BPA CEO Andrew Pester himself threw doubt as to the accuracy of ANPR monitoring/management of car parks. If he thinks they are suspect, who is looking out for the motorist if POPLA is seeking greater proof from them than they are from the PPCs?
    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.
    • StephKat
    • By StephKat 12th May 18, 12:00 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    StephKat
    Hi,


    Replying to this post as it is less than a day active. I've just received the same parking charge notice as outlined above. Reading the outcome of the above appeal, do I have a leg to stand on appealing myself?


    Thanks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th May 18, 1:01 PM
    • 9,306 Posts
    • 9,584 Thanks
    KeithP
    StephKat, please start your own thread.

    Although your case may well be similar, offering advice to two different people about two separate incidents can only lead to confusion.

    Please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread as well.

    Please, no response here. Start a new thread if needed. Thanks.
    .
    • LoneStarState
    • By LoneStarState 4th Sep 18, 10:51 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    LoneStarState
    Small update with this.


    Post POPLA we have had the ususal debt collector nonsense from DRP then Zenith (who made a very compassionate offer to reduce the charge down to £100) and now have been contacted by the ever disreputable BWLegal with debt claims and now suprisingly a letter before claim.


    I'll post up a draft response to the LBC when done although I'm fairly confident given the well linked examples in the newbies thread it should be ok.


    We're also currently in discussion with the management agent of the Portswood Centre to try and get this harassment stopped (in hindsight I will freely admit this avenue should have been pursued sooner).
    • LoneStarState
    • By LoneStarState 4th Sep 18, 10:57 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    LoneStarState
    Oh, and also for amusement and wide eyed incredulity see below for Southampton City Council's attitude towards known breaches of planning control and lack of advertisement consent.


    They initially didn't respond to my original email giving the specific details and I then had to send a second after remembering they never responded three months ago (while including the original email).


    Dear Mr XXXXXX

    Thank you for your email.

    Unfortunately I have been unable to locate the email sent by you on 18 May 2018 and this is the reason why you have not been contacted to date, I have no idea why I cannot locate this and can only assume that it may have been deleted in error. The Planning Enforcement Team receive several emails per day almost every day of the year.

    In respect of your specific complaint, unfortunately the Local Planning Authority are not pursuing any complaints received in respect of the types of cctv and signage which you refer to which are currently placed on land associated with private car parks. If the Local Planning Authority were to investigate a single site in connection with cctv and signage then all other similar sites within the city boundary would need to be investigated also. These types of complaints are considered not expedient and I can confirm that officers will not look into this particular complaint.

    If you consider that your family relatives are being harassed by a particular company then you must consider taking legal advice.

    I trust this clarifies the Councils position on this matter for you.

    Regards

    YYYY YYYYYYYYY
    Enforcement Supervisor
    Southampton City Council

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Sep 18, 11:32 AM
    • 19,501 Posts
    • 30,844 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    But lack of advertising consent for signs (forget planning permission for cameras - that's deflecting attention from the main issue) is a potential criminal offence. I'd write back and ask why the council is prepared to turn a blind eye to a potential criminal offence? Can they confirm that they fully understand the position in which they are placing themselves?

    Do look up the law on advertising consent to make sure you have chapter and verse in order to compose your letter without providing any wriggle-room for the council in responding.

    You could cc the letter to your councillor and your MP - make sure the letter to the council is suitably marked 'cc' - that will dissuade them from firing you a fob-off.
    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.
    • BearsintheTrees
    • By BearsintheTrees 6th Sep 18, 6:08 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    BearsintheTrees
    Portswood Shopping center car park
    Puts me off going to Portswood at all, so I may do the same as you and contact the Portswood management agent to complain
    • LoneStarState
    • By LoneStarState 8th Sep 18, 5:07 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    LoneStarState
    Agreed BT

    I haven't been back since and won't intend to. The site is clearly a honey trap with parking conditions that aren't appropriate for a shopping centre consisting of a lot of restuarants, bars and the like (where 2 hours parking is not enough

    Also thanks UKM. Indeed I will not let it rest (especially for the advertisement consent). Not investigating the planning complaint made by me is in fact against their own planning enforcement policy which states they will investigate every complaint they receive after appropriately prioritising it.

    It's also worrying that it seems to only be for private car parks they will not investigate. Why bother investigating any private land with planning breaches? They might as well remove planning enforcement from their name.

    I have a feeling they're fobbing me off because I'm not actually resident in Southampton (I had to provide contact details as they reserve the right not to investigate at all if no details are provided) and that as a result they can just brush away my complaint. Will try to see if they play ball with my next email. If not, it will be time to forward to local politicians.
    • LoneStarState
    • By LoneStarState 12th Sep 18, 10:21 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    LoneStarState
    See below for initial draft response to letter before claim. Feel it's acceptable, any glaring errors/omissions let me know. It's only been slightly adapted from examples linked in newbies. BW Legal have given a deadline of start of October:

    Dear Sirs,

    I am in receipt of your Letter of Claim dated XX August 2018.

    Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

    Your client must know that an updated Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims was issued on 01 October 2017. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, this updated protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

    Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the updated Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2). Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligation, and when costs come to be considered.

    As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable from 01 October 2017 and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceeding or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced “Letter of Claim” in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new protocol.

    Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligation of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

    I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

    1. An explanation of the cause of action
    2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver of keeper
    3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    4. What the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked and for how long.
    5. Detailed breakdown of how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, including the breakdown of the £60 cost titled “Initial Legal Costs”.
    6. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide me a copy of that contract.
    7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    8. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA Code of Practice section 7 including any clauses on entry and exit grace periods, and genuine customer clauses for the retail site.
    9. A site plan showing where any signs are displayed.
    10. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed).
    11. Evidence of signage at the site having been granted advertisement consent by the Local Planning Authority.
    12. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest, administrative or other charges added.
    13. Please provide details of ALL Parking Charge Notices (“PCN”) issued by your client for this alleged parking incident and subsequent action taken in respect of these PCNs. Your letter dated 14 August 2018 states “… you have failed to make a payment or raise an appeal within 28 days from the date of the PCN….”. This is factually incorrect and has caused me distress and confusion, I seek clarity of the facts in this case.

    In your recent correspondence to me you have referred to the £60 of the £160 “Balance” as “Total Debt Recovery Costs”, I refer you to a letter dated XX August 2018, addressed to myself which refers to the £60 charge as “…. Our Client’s initial legal costs….”. I am confused with your correspondence to me as they use contradictory terms, in addition to point 5 above, please clarify exactly what these charges are. I would like to refer you to CPR 27.14 which explicitly disallows you from claiming legal costs.

    If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20); Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceeding, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

    Until your client has complied with its obligation and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15 (b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

    Yours Faithfully
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Sep 18, 1:53 AM
    • 61,752 Posts
    • 74,662 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'm removing Daniel san's version of the reply to a LBC from the NEWBIES thread, because it is so old it is not helping people. I am fed up with seeing it used a year later and it doesn't dent BW Legal's confidence at all, and just shows you've copied an oldish forum template, which makes you (possibly) look like more of a likely victim, which is not your intention!

    No copying it verbatim, especially the start: 'an update in October 2017' (a year ago)!

    Why not just write a letter denying liability, and asking for a list of what you want to see in evidence? e.g. did they supply photos taken in the dark, with their POPLA evidence, or just daylight photos?

    Add that BW Legal MUST tell their client immediately, that the list of required documents, images and all data held about the VRN and this case, must be treated as a 'Subject Access Request' (SAR) and handled by their client's Data Protection Officer accordingly, and that due to the SAR in progress, as the data subject, you require that all data processing must cease/be restricted until the SAR process is completed at no cost to the data subject, as set out in the relevant articles of the GDPR.

    IMHO, no template is needed when replying to a LBC, however, this last bit is still good and I like the additions you added, BTW:

    Please provide details of ALL Parking Charge Notices ('PCN') issued by your client for this alleged parking incident and subsequent action taken in respect of these PCNs. Your letter dated 14 August 2018 states '… you have failed to make a payment or raise an appeal within 28 days from the date of the PCN….'. This is factually incorrect and has caused me distress and confusion, I seek clarity of the facts in this case.

    In your recent correspondence to me you have referred to the £60 of the £160 'Balance' as 'Total Debt Recovery Costs', I refer you to a letter dated XX August 2018, addressed to myself which refers to the £60 charge as '…. Our Client’s initial legal costs….'. I am confused with your correspondence to me as they use contradictory terms, in addition to point 5 above, please clarify exactly what these charges are. I would like to refer you to CPR 27.14 which explicitly disallows you from claiming legal costs.

    If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20); Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceeding, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

    Until your client has complied with its obligation and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15 (b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 13-09-2018 at 1:58 AM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
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

3,268Posts Today

7,982Users online

Martin's Twitter