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
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 10th Apr 18, 8:58 PM
    • 56Posts
    • 38Thanks
    Elmo111
    Letter Before Claim - UKPPO
    • #1
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:58 PM
    Letter Before Claim - UKPPO 10th Apr 18 at 8:58 PM
    Hi everyone,

    After receiving this 'Letter Before Claim' from UK Parking Patrol Office, I'm wondering what my next move should be. Attached is a Google Drive link to a PDF I've compiled.

    hxxp://bit.ly/2JBgY3Q

    As seen on the first and second page of the LBC, they're intending to commence legal action to recover the amount of £665.02 from 4 separate parking charge notices, one dated from July last year and 3 from September. On page 3, they've attached a DEFENDANT'S REPLY FORM, which states my reason to reply based on their legal action.

    I've replied to them via e-mail stating that this is the absolute FIRST I have heard about the 4 parking charge notices and the fact that it's gone this far without any debt collectors letters or correspondence from themselves and leads me to believe I am in a difficult situation.

    Since the e-mail to UKPPC, I have been in an e-mail chain with them disputing the delivery/the acceptance of these letters and as a matter of 'good-will', they will knock the amount outstanding to £600.00.

    I'm trying to keep this thread short and sweet, as from previous forum posts on MSE, I understand the complexities of where this may lead me. After replies directly with 'Karen', from 'UKPPO Legal Department', I've got 7 days worth of correspondence between myself and Karen and will post if requested. As a slight summary of where I'm at with replies from Karen, she's telling me to dispute the letters I've not received from the debt recovery company called 'Debt Recovery Plus', and the £600 outstanding still stands. Based on the original 30 days, I'm now left with 7 days. I have also mentioned that I am absolutely in no way disputing the original parking charge notices and I'm more than willing to pay the initial figure of each notice, just not this figure based on their inability to tell me where this inflated number comes from.

    According to the date on the letter, the LBC was sent on the 20th March, but unfortunately, I'd received the letter on the 1st of April, so this instantly took 11 days off the 30 days they'd given me to respond/make payment. Karen has seemingly signed off today's reply with a rather informal 'Balance to be paid within 7 days'.

    I would absolutely love some support with this matter and I am unbelievably grateful of any time spent with me on this.

    (A slight spelling giggle from the letter - looks like they can't copy and paste a link from a URL bar...)

    Kind regards,
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Apr 18, 4:14 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Brilliant. It would be interesting if you popped in to 'see' them to chase up a reply. Take someone with you, these companies are rough.
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 13th Apr 18, 5:21 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Brilliant. It would be interesting if you popped in to 'see' them to chase up a reply. Take someone with you, these companies are rough.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hi Coupon-Mad,

    So Karen just replied with a copy of the PCN tickets...not the NTK's as requested, here is the full reply from her.

    ************
    Attached evidence of the notice to keeper for the 4 PCN's

    The site in question is subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout the area. Those signs clearly state: “Parking Is Restricted To Vehicles Displaying A Valid Permit Only”, see attached.

    On the dates quoted to you, the vehicle was observed parked and unattended without the appropriate permit.

    As previously stated, numerous letters were sent to the postal address of the Registered Keeper, whose address was obtained via a legal document from the DVLA. Without evidence to the contrary, I must presume that these letters were delivered and received. To reiterate, if there has been a problem regarding the delivery of the documentation to your address, then this is a matter to raise with your postal service.

    A new Law from 1st October 2012 (part of the Protection of Freedoms Act) changed liability for parking on private land from the driver of the vehicle to the vehicle’s registered keeper, unless the keeper clearly identifies who was driving the car at the time.

    Kind regards

    Karen
    UKPPO Legal Department

    ************

    Pretty sure I asked for the proof of postings, to which she's not attached. She did however attach this photo of the signage contractual terms from July 2013...

    hxxp://bit.ly/UKPPOJuly2013Signage
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Apr 18, 5:55 PM
    • 4,158 Posts
    • 5,012 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Http://bit.ly/UKPPOJuly2013Signage

    Those will be the NtK, according to the email. They dint have to be called "NtK" just be sent to the keeper.

    She csn presume all she wants, but if they lack proof of posting - they do - and you can state these were not received, then they weren't received. Four docs going missing is unlikely, it's much more likely they never sent them in the first place.

    I'd respond staying - I presume therefore you have no proof of posting for any of the notices?
    • Castle
    • By Castle 13th Apr 18, 6:40 PM
    • 2,125 Posts
    • 2,844 Thanks
    Castle

    Pretty sure I asked for the proof of postings, to which she's not attached. She did however attach this photo of the signage contractual terms from July 2013...

    hxxp://bit.ly/UKPPOJuly2013Signage
    Originally posted by Elmo111
    Did they really say this was from 2013, because UKPPO Ltd was dormant until 1st April 2015 and couldn't offer a contract; (also they were in the BPA until November 2015).
    • Redx
    • By Redx 13th Apr 18, 6:52 PM
    • 20,410 Posts
    • 25,768 Thanks
    Redx
    you are doing a good job so far , keep it up, dont believe all they are telling you either, but you can believe the replies in this thread by the regulars on here

    keep up the email tennis etc, they should comply with those new PaP rules and so keep at them for all that info you are asking for, and ensure you get those dates from the DVLA too

    as the driver has not been identified they would have to try and use POFA2012 to go after the keeper, plus as mentioned above there may be issues with the company not being "live" , never mind anything else they will have tripped up on , like proof of posting (not "signed for" as its clear nobody signed for anything at all)

    it only gets serious if they issue an MCOL from Northampton CCBC to your current address , but with help from people on here you stand a good chance of seeing them off in court too

    even if you lost it may be for a lower figure , plus if you win you can claim back costs

    looking at that google map info, they dont seem too far from me , lol , in fact I will be going somewhere on that map tomorrow evening, but I wont be paying them a visit

    ps:- if this is FORBIDDING SIGNAGE and no offer to park then its a matter for the landowner and trespass against the driver (if known) - surely ?
    Last edited by Redx; 13-04-2018 at 7:00 PM.
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Apr 18, 6:55 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Ask again for the NTKs and give her a little sarcastic lesson in the 'new law' of the GDPR and your right to data. You want the NTKs.
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 15th Apr 18, 10:12 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Did they really say this was from 2013, because UKPPO Ltd was dormant until 1st April 2015 and couldn't offer a contract; (also they were in the BPA until November 2015).
    Originally posted by Castle
    Evening Castle,

    It looks like they've renamed the original document to 'Contractual Notice.pdf', but the title upon creation in Illustrator was 'Parking Patrol july2013'. Even opening the PDF document they sent, if you open it in the Chrome/Acrobat, the document even shows the original PDF title in the top... 'Parking Patrol july2013'. Clearly another blundering mistake from UKPPO, but I'm pretty sure I can't use this as a defence.

    hxxp://bit.ly/ukpposignage - is a view of the actual document details for further inspection.

    @nosferatu1001 - Karen has literally just sent a scanned/digital copy of each PCN stuck to the car - is that accepted as an NtK? I've also responded in an e-mail this evening asking again for the proof of purchase.

    @Coupon-Mad - I've also thrown in a little bit about GDPR, looking forward to their response on this!

    @Redx - Awaiting the reply from the DVLA, this could take up to 7 days apparently! Also when you say FORBIDDING SIGNAGE, does this mean that UKPPO almost have no right in issuing PCN's at all?

    Thanks again everyone!
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 15th Apr 18, 11:38 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Also for those intrigued,

    In the most recent e-mail from Karen, this is an example of the NTK that UKPPO supposedly send.

    hxxp://bit.ly/UKPPO-PCNorNTK

    Would they really send this in the post to a keeper? Also take note of the first paragraph below the supposed contravention:

    "...The driver is liable for this charge."

    Karen states in her most recent reply

    "A new Law from 1st October 2012 (part of the Protection of Freedoms Act) changed liability for parking on private land from the driver of the vehicle to the vehicle!!!8217;s registered keeper."

    Any comments or thoughts are appreciated, as always!
    • clowni
    • By clowni 16th Apr 18, 12:27 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    clowni
    good work, well done
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 18, 12:43 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WbYpgmlWQ5uDaKwZRIqxfcQeJgA7UVso/view

    Would they really send this in the post to a keeper?
    No. That is not a Notice to Keeper.

    Google UKPPO Notice to Keeper and search Google Images and you will find one, it's a letter. Not a PCN, that is NOT a NTK.

    Also take note of the first paragraph below the supposed contravention:
    "...The driver is liable for this charge."
    That's actually true and they have to say that on a windscreen initial PCN, because in the first 28 days the driver is the only liable party.

    It's only after they then get DVLA data of the registered keeper, and if they then serve a compliant NTK letter* between day 29 and day 56 of the parking event, that they can transfer liability to the Keeper.

    Point that out to the fragrant 'Karen' and ask for the NTKs, again!



    *CLUE: they won't have served a fully compliant one (statutory wording) and I bet she won't have a copy!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-04-2018 at 12:46 AM.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 16th Apr 18, 10:08 AM
    • 2,125 Posts
    • 2,844 Thanks
    Castle
    Evening Castle,

    It looks like they've renamed the original document to 'Contractual Notice.pdf', but the title upon creation in Illustrator was 'Parking Patrol july2013'. Even opening the PDF document they sent, if you open it in the Chrome/Acrobat, the document even shows the original PDF title in the top... 'Parking Patrol july2013'. Clearly another blundering mistake from UKPPO, but I'm pretty sure I can't use this as a defence.

    hxxp://bit.ly/ukpposignage - is a view of the actual document details for further inspection.
    Originally posted by Elmo111
    Is there a bottom half of the contractual Notice; although it won't matter because it might as well be fake.

    Tell Karen that they must send time stamped photos of the signs in place on that site on the day the car was parked; because, that's the only contract they can offer the driver.
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 16th Apr 18, 10:14 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Is there a bottom half of the contractual Notice; although it won't matter because it might as well be fake.

    Tell Karen that they must send time stamped photos of the signs in place on that site on the day the car was parked; because, that's the only contract they can offer the driver.
    Originally posted by Castle
    I also wondered the same about the signage she'd sent - it does seem relatively small compared to the usual private car park 'terms and conditions' you see upon entry to a car park.

    The DVLA has replied and said they'll let me know by the 14th of May how many times UKPPO has accessed my data.

    Karen hasn't replied to my most recent e-mail, sent last night. If by close of play tomorrow I have no response from her I'll ask her for the time stamped photos of the signs in place on the site for each of the 4 contraventions - tomorrow would be the last of the 7 days UKPPO would've given me to pay, so I can only imagine they're choosing not to reply/fulfil my requests to stall my need for information.
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 18th Apr 18, 5:00 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Hey again everyone,

    So after some patience, UKPPO has replied.

    *******

    Mr XXXXXXXXXX,

    Notice to Keeper is the letter sent to the address we receive from the DVLA. Under the balance of probabilities we must assume the letters were delivered, if not as we have suggested we would recommend you take this matter up with the Postal Service. I must admit to struggling to understand how approximately 24 letters have gone astray.

    Regards Karen
    UKPPO Legal department

    ********

    This reply from Karen completely ignores the bulk of my previous e-mail, where I requested proof of postings and asked if the copy of the PCN's she sent me are accepted as an NTK.

    Any thoughts from here? It's the shortest reply I've received since the original e-mail sent on the 3rd of April.

    Thanks everyone!
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 18th Apr 18, 6:14 PM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Karen is correct. No proof of posting is required as BoP covers it.

    To put it simply, BoP is 51%. Royal Mail's performance is 90%+. And as the Courts are large users of Royal Mail, they will know what the RM performance is. To ask for proof of posting just marks you out as ripe for picking.
    Last edited by IamEmanresu; 18-04-2018 at 6:16 PM.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 19th Apr 18, 10:56 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Karen is correct. No proof of posting is required as BoP covers it.

    To put it simply, BoP is 51%. Royal Mail's performance is 90%+. And as the Courts are large users of Royal Mail, they will know what the RM performance is. To ask for proof of posting just marks you out as ripe for picking.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    Oh that certainly is interesting, so BoP is actually recognised as a legal step, as you'd imagine I'm new to all of this so it's a massive learn for me!

    Following previous advice on here, I think I'm trying to gather if UKPPO actually sent the supposed NTK's. There would be no other reason not to, based on the ~90% success rate of RM.

    The 24 letters she's referring to are 20 from DRP, who also can't provide me with proof of posting. The other 4 are the NTK's sent.

    I've kindly referred Karen numerous times to section 5.2 of the pre-action Protocol and she's ignored/beaten around the bush for any of my requests for information. If proof of postings are debunked based on PoB, that's fine - but the compliant NTK's are a part of this process from UKPPO's end, are they not? Other than the PCN's affixed, how else are you supposed to know you're a debtor to these private parking companies? I'm also awaiting information from the DVLA stating exactly how many times UKPPO has accessed my data.

    Tonight, per advice from Castle, I've requested time stamped photos of the signs in place on that site on the days the car was parked.

    Today was also the final of the 30 days notice given from the date of the LBC, with the last reply from UKPPO being on Tuesday evening. I'm toying with the idea of CC'ing my solicitor in for future correspondence - if intimidation is their game...

    Any further advice would be massively appreciated, I cannot thank you all enough for your time so far!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Apr 18, 11:37 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I see you have replied tonight already, but have this sort of thing in your back pocket for the next response to their drivel:

    Mr XXXXXXXXXX,

    Notice to Keeper is the letter sent to the address we receive from the DVLA. Under the balance of probabilities we must assume the letters were delivered, if not as we have suggested we would recommend you take this matter up with the Postal Service. I must admit to struggling to understand how approximately 24 letters have gone astray.

    Regards Karen
    UKPPO Legal department



    Dear Karen,

    A Notice to Keeper is the letter that a parking firm is required to send to the address supplied by the DVLA, if the operator is to rely upon the POFA, Schedule 4.

    Under the balance of probabilities, since you continue to evade providing me with a copy of that purported document in our pre-action communications, I must assume the Notice to Keeper(s) do not exist. Alternatively, that you are withholding a copy because you know they are not POFA compliant and that you have no cause of action against me in law.

    I must admit to struggling to understand how UKPPO can defend not supplying (vital to your case) copies of any NTK(s) on the one hand, yet suggesting - as if it is a good thing - that it will be your case that UKPPO bombarded me with 'approximately 24 letters'.

    It is with distress that I note that your claimed amount of letters you boast that you will say were sent to me, is approximately twice as many demands than the unwarranted demands which bombarded the consumer victim in the case of Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46, where the company's course of conduct amounted to unlawful harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and they were liable to pay the defendant over £10,000 in compensation.

    The persistent misuse of my data, that UKPPO bought from the DVLA for the strictly limited purpose of 'enquiring who was driving' (no more is allowed under the KADOE rules) is causing me significant distress. I have no wish to set out, for your delectation and/or discussion among your colleagues, the details of the distress and alarm your company has caused and continues to cause, but will certainly do so in a counter-claim, should UKPPO proceed with a claim against me, the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    I refer UKPPO to two rulings where County Court Judges have accepted the tort of damages against parking companies with similar baseless claims for 'parking charges', namely:

    (a) Claim No D6GM2199 at the County Court at Bury Court: Civil Enforcement Ltd v Mr B, where District Judge Osborne accepted the argument about a DPA breach by a Parking Company who could not hold a registered keeper liable (just like UKPPO), yet still pursued that party. He agreed £500 was not unreasonable, given the distress of demands and a court claim. He said he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case. The Court's attention is respectfully drawn to the fact that exemplary costs of £405 (as requested) was granted. This is understood to have arisen due to the claim being found to be false and/or vexatious, or where a party is found to be guilty of misrepresentation or suppression of facts.

    (b) On 16th March 2018 at Slough in case D8HW7G7P, UK Parking Control Limited v Mr S, a £500 counter-claim was granted to the successful Defendant due to data protection breaches, and at the same time, the original meritless parking charge claim was dismissed. It is my understanding that the successful party is obtaining a transcript of that decision which will be made available for other beleaguered registered keepers to use, and I will certainly adduce it in support of my counter claim for damages.

    Take formal note, I require UKPPO to step back from your course of conduct and to cease and desist. You may consider this a drop hands offer and it remains open to you to accept, and to cancel the 'parking charge(s)' that - if they had any merit - you should have pursued from the party with whom you have positively identified that a contract existed.

    This drop hands offer ceases to apply at 4.30pm on 30th April 2018.

    Yours sincerely,
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 19-04-2018 at 11:48 PM.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 20th Apr 18, 5:21 AM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    How can the OP be "harassed" when in his first posting the OP said "I am absolutely in no way disputing the original parking charge notices and I'm more than willing to pay the initial figure of each notice"

    4 tickets at 6 letters each of which 4 (16 letters in all) will be from debt collectors. The missing paperwork is one thing but the facts around the 4 charges / location / signs is another.

    If a claim does arise, the OP could admit part of the debt IF that is their wish. Then it would be down to whether the additional costs were actually incurred. UKPPO would then have to decide if they take what is offered (the original charges) or pay to have their "additional costs" examined in court.
    Last edited by IamEmanresu; 20-04-2018 at 5:23 AM.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 20th Apr 18, 10:34 AM
    • 56 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Elmo111
    Morning everyone,

    Much quicker than usual, Karen has decided to reply.

    ***********

    To Mr XXXXX,

    I intend to issue a claim through money claim online. I will be entering the details of the claim on the 25th April 2018.

    Please note any future correspondence will be filed, but not responded to.

    Regards
    Karen
    UKPPO Legal department

    *************

    What's my next steps from here? Is this UKPPO issuing court proceedings?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 20th Apr 18, 10:45 AM
    • 38,011 Posts
    • 22,107 Thanks
    Quentin
    What's my next steps from here? Is this UKPPO issuing court proceedings?
    Originally posted by Elmo111


    No


    She is "allowing" you a little extra time to pay.


    If (when!) you don't then she is saying she will issue proceedings in 5 days time


    If she does then follow the advice in #2 in the newbies faq on court claims
    • Elmo111
    • By Elmo111 20th Apr 18, 11:42 AM
    • 56 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Elmo111
    @Coupon-mad

    An absolutely massive thanks to your reply, it's a shame I didn't get to use it.

    Thanks to everybody so far for your responses too, I've learnt a lot and now we move onto the next step of this journey it seems.
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

398Posts Today

3,192Users online

Martin's Twitter