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
    • johjames
    • By johjames 21st Feb 18, 7:20 PM
    • 33Posts
    • 17Thanks
    johjames
    Parking Awareness Service (PAS) PCN
    • #1
    • 21st Feb 18, 7:20 PM
    Parking Awareness Service (PAS) PCN 21st Feb 18 at 7:20 PM
    Well, the irony is in the name, given that PAS appear to be run by a recognised scammer!

    I received a 'Parking Charge Notice" from PAS in relation to an alleged offence which occurred in October of last year. The letter states 'The driver of the above vehicle is liable for a Parking Charge for the above amount' and so it goes on. It later states 'we do not know both the name and serviceable address for the driver and as the registered keeper of the vehicle you are invited to pay the amount due nor if you were not the driver please provide their full name, current serviceable address and if possible pass this notice to them'.

    I've read the Newbies advice and threads relating to IPC members and I have a couple of questions which I hope the more experienced amongst you could answer please. Firstly, does this letter amount to a Notice to Keeper? Secondly, if it does, should I add to my response (the IAS template response from MSE) that PAS's non-compliance with POFA means that they have forfeited any right to hold me as keeper liable for any charges? They were, in my view, non-compliant with Paragraph 9, given that the letter was received nearly 4 months after the alleged parking contravention; and Paragraph 8, as the land to which the alleged contravention relates was not readable due to an error in their printing on the letter. Finally would you suggest delaying my response until the 28th day, as I was unclear about this from the forums I've read in an IPC case?

    Thanks, your advice is very much appreciated.
Page 3
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 5th Apr 18, 9:20 PM
    • 1,152 Posts
    • 2,185 Thanks
    Johnersh
    as the PCN was not issued under POFA you the keeper will be assumed as the driver unless proven otherwise.
    Assumed by them, perhaps. Not in law. There is still no presumption in law that the keeper = the driver (unlike in most European countries).

    The onus is on them to prove who was driving, whatever they say....
    "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.
    • johjames
    • By johjames 7th Apr 18, 12:13 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    johjames
    You could always send a F.O.I request to the DVLA and ask copies of any correspondence, (including audits), between P.A.S and the DVLA over the last year/2 years for example.

    The DPA would only apply to the landowner if they were a person; Companies are not covered under the DPA.
    Originally posted by Castle
    Thanks Castle, I will certainly do that.
    • johjames
    • By johjames 10th Aug 18, 4:45 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    johjames
    So I've received a letter before claim from Debt Logic and I've penned the following response, for which I'm very grateful to Coupon-M for their previous post in another thread which provided the template. As you can see my response doesn't address the lack of detail in their letter before claim, although I could add this. I'd be very grateful for your opinions and advice before I post off this to them. Thanks.

    To Debt Logic Pre-Litigation Manager,

    Cease and desist from contacting me - this is now unwarranted harassment and your client is causing significant distress to me and my family.

    Your letter and previous communications clearly display my complete lack of liability as outlined below [my bold]:

    1. You letter before claim dated 2018 refers to me as the !!!8216;driver!!!8217; of the vehicle in question, despite this being untrue - !!!8217;We write to you, the driver of the vehicle to advise that if payment or adequate response is not received in 30 days no further correspondence will be sent. The next letter you receive will be court proceedings!!!8217;.
    !!!8216;On 2017, you were granted a limited contractual licence to enter the private land at which is managed and operated by our client. Of which the driver agreed when parking to adhere to the Terms & Conditions of the site!!!8217;.
    !!!8216;On 2017 you breached the Terms & Conditions [Reason: Parked longer than the period allocated to their vehicle!!!8217;s registration]. The breach resulted in our client issuing a Parking Charge Notice.

    2. Your client acknowledged in their letter dated 27th February 2018 that the Parking Charge Notice which they issued was !!!8216;NonPOFA!!!8217;. You are of course aware that outwith the POFA there is no keeper liability.
    It must also be noted that your client in this very same letter stated !!!8216;The PCN sent to you was NonPOFA as the DVLA carried out an audit (to ensure legitimacy of the request) causing the issue of the PCN to be delayed!!!8217;. The DVLA have confirmed to me in writing, that no audit was being undertaken at this time which would have delayed the issue of the PCN and it is therefore readily apparent that your client is acting in a dishonest manner, bringing the DVLA into disrepute.

    This continued contact and demands for money from me, a person who is not liable in law, as I was not the driver and POFA was flagrantly not adhered to you by your client, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.

    This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.

    I repeat - you know I am not liable in law, outwith the POFA, there is no 'keeper liability'.

    Stop writing misleading letters. Stop writing any letters. Your client has no cause of action against me and must take it up with the driver, and should have done so in a timely manner, establishing on the day who that party was, if they felt there was a parking charge due.

    Take formal note, and tell your clients: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. I have already issued a Section 10 notice to your client on 2018 via electronic communication, which has been ignored which is extremely troubling. You and your client must now stop processing my data and delete it from your records after cancelling the meritless 'charge' you are chasing, to my huge distress.

    If your client proceeds to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum your client is unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a week-by-week basis, as evidence to support my position. I will have no hesitation in seeking the full amount of damages the Judge sees fit to award.

    I am aware of the following two cases in the past year:

    - on Friday 16th March, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his 500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.

    - in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded 900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant (same as your client's NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from 100 to 300 by adding spurious amounts.
    Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that 500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional 405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.

    I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you and your clients.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 10th Aug 18, 4:48 PM
    • 36,837 Posts
    • 20,974 Thanks
    Quentin
    As long as you realise a cease and desist won't stop a claim being issued!
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Aug 18, 5:10 PM
    • 8,637 Posts
    • 8,549 Thanks
    KeithP
    So I've received a letter before claim from Debt Logic...
    Originally posted by johjames
    Are you sure Debt Logic have sent you a Letter Before Claim?

    Or are they perhaps just threatening?

    Maybe you can show us the letter?

    The usual response to debt collector's letters is to ignore them.
    .
    • Grimble
    • By Grimble 10th Aug 18, 7:45 PM
    • 425 Posts
    • 511 Thanks
    Grimble
    Debt Logic is another of his companies, he tries it on.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th Aug 18, 10:48 PM
    • 18,891 Posts
    • 29,743 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    What did the DVLA say when you put forward your Freedom of Information Request back in April (as advised by Castle)?

    They will have been required by law to have responded to you by now.
    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.
    • johjames
    • By johjames 11th Aug 18, 9:42 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    johjames
    Quentin, thanks, I do.
    KeithP, I've attached the letter. It seems to be a Letter Before Claim, however I'd be grateful for other opinions.
    Umkomaas, The DVLA said 'The Agency has not undertaken any audits, during the period in question, on Parking Awareness Services Ltd (PAS). Also, and as advised previously, a DVLA audit would not be expected to delay the processing of requests for DVLA data. If an audit is being conducted, that should not affect the ability to request data from DVLA'.
    Of course this means that PAS were flagrantly lying and shifting blame without cause to the DVLA, when they wrote to me stating that their demand was nonPOFA because of delays caused by a DVLA audit. Thanks all, your expertise and advice is valued.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Aug 18, 9:47 AM
    • 36,837 Posts
    • 20,974 Thanks
    Quentin
    Did they enclose any forms to return to them? (Not that you would,!!,)
    • Grimble
    • By Grimble 11th Aug 18, 9:53 AM
    • 425 Posts
    • 511 Thanks
    Grimble
    Debt Logic, Vanquish are all part of Mathews scam, you could reply asking for all the paperwork they intend to rely on in court and an unredacted contract with the land owner if you want a laugh.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Aug 18, 11:11 AM
    • 8,114 Posts
    • 10,653 Thanks
    beamerguy
    PPC ticket came from Parking Awareness

    As Debt Logic is owned by the same person, was
    this transfered internally by PA adding a fake charge
    or sold.

    What right does Debt Logic have to issue an LBA ????
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • johjames
    • By johjames 11th Aug 18, 1:07 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    johjames
    No forms were enclosed to return Quentin.
    • johjames
    • By johjames 11th Aug 18, 1:08 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    johjames
    Debt Logic, Vanquish are all part of Mathews scam, you could reply asking for all the paperwork they intend to rely on in court and an unredacted contract with the land owner if you want a laugh.
    Originally posted by Grimble
    Thanks Grimble, i'd thought of doing this, however I wanted to see whether there was a consensus view as to whether I should proceed with the response I posted earlier.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Aug 18, 1:14 PM
    • 8,114 Posts
    • 10,653 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Thanks Grimble, i'd thought of doing this, however I wanted to see whether there was a consensus view as to whether I should proceed with the response I posted earlier.
    Originally posted by johjames
    As Grimble says, they must comply with the law

    That letter above clearly shows that the sender is clueless
    on the new protocol
    Last edited by beamerguy; 11-08-2018 at 1:18 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Aug 18, 1:54 PM
    • 36,837 Posts
    • 20,974 Thanks
    Quentin
    No forms were enclosed to return Quentin.
    Originally posted by johjames
    So if it is really a lbcca and not just another threatening debt collectors letter, then it's non compliant with the correct pre court action protocol.

    You can treat it as a lbcca and respond, the newbies FAQ thread #2 covers rebuttals for lbccas

    Alternatively ignore it and should a claim follow it point out in the defence they used a non compliant debt collectors letter in place of a proper lbcca
    • johjames
    • By johjames 11th Aug 18, 1:59 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    johjames
    Thanks Quentin, beamerguy and Grimble. I'll post my planned response to their lba.
    • johjames
    • By johjames 11th Aug 18, 2:07 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    johjames
    It's a long one! Here's my proposed response to Debt Logic's LBA. Your opinions would be gratefully received, so that I can amend accordingly before I send it.

    Debt Logic
    27 Old Gloucester Street,
    London
    WC1N 3AX

    August 2018

    Your Ref:

    To Debt Logic Pre-Litigation Manager,

    Cease and desist from contacting me - this is now unwarranted harassment and your client is causing significant distress to me and my family.

    Your letter and previous communications clearly display my complete lack of liability as outlined below [my bold]:

    1. You letter before claim dated 2018 refers to me as the !!!8216;driver!!!8217; of the vehicle in question, despite this being untrue - !!!8217;We write to you, the driver of the vehicle to advise that if payment or adequate response is not received in 30 days no further correspondence will be sent. The next letter you receive will be court proceedings!!!8217;.
    !!!8216;On , you were granted a limited contractual licence to enter the private land at which is managed and operated by our client. Of which the driver agreed when parking to adhere to the Terms & Conditions of the site!!!8217;.
    !!!8216;On you breached the Terms & Conditions [Reason: Parked longer than the period allocated to their vehicle!!!8217;s registration]. The breach resulted in our client issuing a Parking Charge Notice.

    2. Your client acknowledged in their letter dated 2018 that the Parking Charge Notice which they issued was !!!8216;NonPOFA!!!8217;. You are of course aware that outwith the POFA there is no keeper liability.
    It must also be noted that your client in this very same letter stated !!!8216;The PCN sent to you was NonPOFA as the DVLA carried out an audit (to ensure legitimacy of the request) causing the issue of the PCN to be delayed!!!8217;. The DVLA have confirmed to me in writing, that no audit was being undertaken at this time which would have delayed the issue of the PCN and it is therefore readily apparent that your client is acting in a dishonest manner, bringing the DVLA into disrepute in a libellous manner.

    This continued contact and demands for money from me, a person who is not liable in law, as I was not the driver and POFA was flagrantly not adhered to you by your client, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.

    This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.

    I repeat - you know I am not liable in law, outwith the POFA, there is no 'keeper liability'.

    Stop writing misleading letters. Stop writing any letters. Your client has no cause of action against me and must take it up with the driver, and should have done so in a timely manner, establishing on the day who that party was, if they felt there was a parking charge due.

    Take formal note, and tell your clients: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. I have already issued a Section 10 notice to your client on 2018 via electronic communication, which has been ignored which is extremely troubling. You and your client must now stop processing my data and delete it from your records after cancelling the meritless 'charge' you are chasing, to my huge distress.

    If your client proceeds to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum your client is unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a week-by-week basis, as evidence to support my position. I will have no hesitation in seeking the full amount of damages the Judge sees fit to award.

    I am aware of the following two cases in the past year:

    - on Friday 16th March, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his 500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.

    - in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded 900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant (same as your client's NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from 100 to 300 by adding spurious amounts.
    Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that 500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional 405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.

    I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you and your clients.

    It must also be noted that your letter before claim of 2018 contained insufficient detail of the claim and failed to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

    Your client must know that on 1st October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new 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 new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 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 obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

    As the letter was written by you as the !!!8216;Pre-Litigation Manager!!!8217; you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, 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 proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that your firm have sent me a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

    Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations 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. To explicitly state whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
    3. To explicitly state 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, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
    5. 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 to me a copy of that contract.
    6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    7. Provide me with a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1
    8. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
    9. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
    11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

    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) !!!8211; 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 proceedings, 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 obligations 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,
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Aug 18, 6:25 PM
    • 8,114 Posts
    • 10,653 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Very good, please let us know their reply
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Grimble
    • By Grimble 12th Aug 18, 11:04 AM
    • 425 Posts
    • 511 Thanks
    Grimble
    You do realise Mathew has trouble with big words and joined up writing?
    • johjames
    • By johjames 12th Aug 18, 11:26 AM
    • 33 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    johjames
    Thanks beamerguy, I will. Grimble, his firm's grammar is atrocious, so that doesn't surprise me!
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

1,664Posts Today

7,355Users 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