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
    • GiaPetite
    • By GiaPetite 2nd Apr 18, 5:45 PM
    • 62Posts
    • 12Thanks
    GiaPetite
    *URGENT HELP* Appealing Parking Charge taken to court
    • #1
    • 2nd Apr 18, 5:45 PM
    *URGENT HELP* Appealing Parking Charge taken to court 2nd Apr 18 at 5:45 PM
    Hello people.

    I really need some help and advice. I have been sent a letter by the County Court Business Centre for an unpaid parking charge notice issued on the 14th March. I have sent an Acknowledgement of Service, which grants me 28 days from then to prepare a defence and send it off. I really need some help with writing a defence because unfortunately my Grandad suddenly died recently and I haven't got time to write one as I am busy with work and funeral preparations. His funeral is on the 12th April. I am also dyspraxic, which means it takes me longer to process information and to write something like this.

    The PCN was received by the driver on the 31/05/17 and on recommendation of their parents it was ignored because they said PCN's weren't enforceable by law because it was issued by a private company (now they are cracking down on this). Subsequent letters were received on the 6th and 22nd September by ZZPS asking for £140 and then on the 16th October and 2nd November asking for £236. These were ignored because they didn't look very legitimate and are basically a bullying tactic to get you to pay.

    As the driver didn!!!8217;t write to Civil Enforcement straight away to contest it, they can't appeal it directly through them anymore and hence don't have the opportunity to appeal it with POPLA either as it wasn't rejected. This daylight robbery can't continue to happen. It needs to be appealed and won.

    So I will give you the details surrounding this. The driver was visiting their boyfriend who was a tenant at a flat. They were parked in 'V' for visitor parking as all of the flats have their designated space. They didn't know there were time restrictions, as it wasn!!!8217;t stated on any of the signs. However it was stated on the first PCN letter they received that !!!8220;you can't park for longer than 90 minutes as clearly stated on the signage!!!8221; (haven!!!8217;t got this letter but have kept all other correspondence). On the ZZPS and QDR Solicitors letters that the driver received it says: 'PARKED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN BREACH OF THE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED TERMS AND CONDITIONS' and on the County Court Business Centre letters it says: 'CLAIM FOR MONIES RELATING TO A PARKING CHARGE FOR PARKING IN A PRIVATE CAR PARK MANAGED BY THE CLAIMANT IN BREACH OF THE TERMS + CONDITIONS. DRIVERS ARE ALLOWED TO PARK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE T+Cs OF USE. ANPR CAMERAS AND/OR MANUAL PATROLS ARE USED TO MONITOR VEHICLES ENTERING + EXITING THE SITE''

    The thing is, the terms and conditions were not displayed on the signs at all let alone 'Prominently Displayed'. The driver went back to the car park and took pictures of these signs. Unfortunately I can't post them as I am a new user but one sign said:

    PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. See car park signs for terms & conditions. PRIVATE LAND. Site managed using ANPR and manual patrols by Civil Enforcement Ltd.

    The others said:

    PARKING CONDITIONS. CHESTNUT HOUSE RESIDENT PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. If you breach any of these terms you will be charged £100. These terms apply at all times. Additional costs/recovery charges will be incurred if payment is not received within 28 days. We use manual patrols and ANPR cameras to monitor this private property and may contact the DVLA to request the Registered Keeper's details in order to send a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

    On the signs it says that parking is for Resident Permit Holders only but they have 'V' spaces for visitors. If visitors can only park in the 'V' for 90 minutes, surely this has to be in black on white on the signs? Regardless terms and conditions are not displayed and the driver spoke to their boyfriend's ex landlord about whether visitors needed a visitor permit and he said they did not and they were never notified if this was the case. He has since sold his flat.

    The driver took a picture of a car parking in the 'V' spot today and nobody had a permit.

    The only sign visible, which had any kind of information on, was a sign in the opposite car park to the flat car park (I think it is for the pub), which was divided by a fence.

    I don't believe these are the parking T+C's for the other car park as it has a different name and it also says 2 hours not 90 minutes which was stated on the letter the driver received. I think these are different car parks as the PCN the driver received was from an ANPR camera and there is no mention of ANPR cameras on that sign. I believe the other car park signs should be as clear as this one though as the driver has essentially entered into a contract without the terms and conditions being made aware to them. It is also not a pay and display car park so how is several hundred proportionate as there would be no loss of earnings? It's not fair.

    Anyway please could someone advise me and help me on this as I am running out of time and it's stressing me out. This has really come at a bad time. I'm sorry if I over complicated and made the thread too long but I wanted to give as much info as possible.

    Thank you users in advance!

    Fingers crossed I can win this. Hope to hear back soon!
    Last edited by GiaPetite; 02-04-2018 at 7:52 PM. Reason: Personal information
Page 7
    • GiaPetite
    • By GiaPetite 14th Sep 18, 6:53 PM
    • 62 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    GiaPetite
    Hi guys,

    Just an update to let you know that the court wrote to me to say they have struck out the case as Civil Enforcement didn't pay the court hearing fee. Yay!

    The other thing i'll mention is that before I received a letter from the court, I received one from ZZPS asking now for £180 instead of £350 for outstanding debt. Probably a tactic to get you to think "that's better than it was" and pay. Although i'm not sure why it went back to ZZPS when Civil Enforcement wanted to take me to court. Pathetic!

    Anyway thank you so much for all your help. Couldn't have done it without you guys and I have recommended the people of this forum and website to other people.

    Kind Regards,

    A very grateful person!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Sep 18, 8:47 PM
    • 20,270 Posts
    • 31,999 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well done. .

    120+ posts and over 9 months later, all done and dusted.

    Wow, babies have been produced in less time!
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Sep 18, 8:56 PM
    • 64,051 Posts
    • 76,677 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Well done, that counts as a win - another one bites the dust!

    Keep your paperwork for a few weeks, in case CEL come back and tell the Judge they sent the court fee to the wrong court and get it reinstated (as happened in a Gladstones case here last week...).

    But I suspect you will not hear another peep about it, so congrats!
    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
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 14th Sep 18, 10:07 PM
    • 2,862 Posts
    • 3,593 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    well done ....


    but ...


    this is another example of what MP's need to hear about .....


    so kindly consider to read / watch then write ....





    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

    and slightly longer, the committee stage

    https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d5550515-cce9-4185-83ec-754dadb7524a

    ''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

    These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.

    and some quotes from the committe stage

    "The other area is hospital parking, and I want to single out one company for some pretty shady practices. That is ParkingEye"
    " is very clear to me that there is collusion between parking companies and solicitors’ firms—so-called roboclaims companies. "
    "They are often set up adjacently and involve the same directors and personnel. Incidentally, the same personnel get involved in the so-called appeals bodies."
    "Essentially, it is a money-making enterprise that takes advantage of motorists up and down the country. They operate in a very business-like fashion, which is why I call them roboclaims companies."
    "The companies are jamming up parts of our legal system."
    “I now pretty much know exactly how the parking companies and in particular the IPC have been running this scam for the past 5 years. Basically both of the appeals processes are a complete and utter sham, (and part of that sham is Gladstones Solicitors itself)”
    "The appeals process at Excel/VCS is run by a team of minimum wage office workers with no legal knowledge or experience whatsoever,"
    " It is claimed by the head of the appeals service (retired Judge Bryn Holloway) that this is a completely independent fair process, it is not”
    "The letter mentions two individuals—Will Hurley and Bryn Holloway—and concludes this is a typical example of the clear collusion between the IPC, their members and the IAS"
    "what we can do about roboclaims companies and solicitors firms that profit, often in shady ways"
    " the very large amounts of money that can be involved in such scams—a company called Smart Parking was involved in one such scam on my patch"
    "tightening up the rules regarding the unfair use of automatic number plate recognition" "BW Legal, regularly issues 10,000 county court judgments a month, and is known to have issued 28,000 in one month"
    "They are jamming up our court system, and are often totally unjustified."
    " because the lifeblood of trying to extort money from people is having access to their details."

    All from Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (First sitting) Hansard




    Ralph
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

4,628Posts Today

6,430Users online

Martin's Twitter