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
    • AGURRU
    • By AGURRU 9th May 18, 7:58 AM
    • 21Posts
    • 8Thanks
    AGURRU
    ParkingEye - Aire Street Leeds POPLA Decision - Rejected - Next Steps
    • #1
    • 9th May 18, 7:58 AM
    ParkingEye - Aire Street Leeds POPLA Decision - Rejected - Next Steps 9th May 18 at 7:58 AM
    Hi Everyone,

    I have used the threads to appeal a parking charge for the above car park. The charge said the vehicle entered the car park and exited one hour 15 minutes later. One hours of parking was paid for.

    As the registered keeper I appealed via POPLA arguing a few points the main being that grace periods on arrival and exiting were not applied.

    POPLA however in their response said I talk about signage - which my original case to them NEVER mentioned. This makes me wonder if they ever even read it.

    I would appreciate some advice and explanation of next steps. I have put relevant documents below. Apologies for the poor formatting.



    POPLA APPEAL:
    POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXX
    Vehicle Registration: XXXXXX
    I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 10/03/2018 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – ParkingEye – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 16/03/2018 and rejected via an email dated 27/03/2018. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
    1. GRACE PERIOD: BPA CODE OF PRACTICE – NON-COMPLIANCE
    2. THE OPERATOR HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IT IS PURSUING IS IN FACT THE DRIVER WHO
    WAS LIABLE FOR THE CHARGE
    3. NO EVIDENCE OF LANDOWNER AUTHORITY - THE OPERATOR IS TO PUT STRICT PROOF OF FULL COMPLIANCE
    WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
    4. NO EVIDENCE OF PERIOD PARKED – NTK DOES NOT MEET POFA 2012 REQUIREMENTS
    5. VEHICLE IMAGES CONTAINED IN PCN: BPA CODE OF PRACTICE – NON-COMPLIANCE
    6. THE ANPR SYSTEM IS NEITHER RELIABLE NOR ACCURATE



    1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – Non-Compliance
    The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at
    the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.
    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
    “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters
    your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a
    reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking
    charge notice.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
    “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide
    if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without
    permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs
    and leave before you take enforcement action.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
    “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.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:
    “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to
    read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you.
    If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave
    the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to
    leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”
    The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave
    the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Therefore it is reasonable to
    suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also
    a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1, 13.2 and 18.5 of the BPA’s Code of
    Practice.
    Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking
    Association (BPA):
    “The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the
    motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with
    the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”
    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but
    another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, no limited to disability.”
    Finally, some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional
    Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA
    members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA
    Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':
    “Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”
    The recommendation reads:
    “Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes.”
    (Source:britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Meeting%20Notes/
    Governan ce/20150730_PDandS_Board_Action_Notes.pdf)
    This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum - a minimum requirement) means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are de minimis and therefore not taken into account.
    If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions (in this case in the dark with no lighting), decide whether to enter into a contract and in this case download and sign up to a mobile parking app.
    It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which ParkingEye claim was 1 hour 15 minutes 21 seconds) does not take into account a reasonable grace period, given:
    a) The site is not well lit and relies on nearby street lighting as its primary source. of lighting.
    b) Visibility was hindered further as the site was in darkness at time of the visit – 16:49:59 to 18:05:20 (01:15;21).
    c) The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (noncompliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
    d) The failure to light signage adequately so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located.
    All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
    • Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
    • Read the full terms and conditions in the darkness.
    • Decipher the confusing information being presented.
    • Decide to park and therefore enter into a contract.
    • Download and sign up for their parking app.
    • Enter card payment details in the dark.
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.
    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.
    The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot. Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'' Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
    3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is to put strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement). Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
    4. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012
    requirements
    Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract. Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to: “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” ParkingEye's’ NtK simply claims “the vehicle was parked at Aire Street, Leeds” The NtK separately states that the vehicle “Arrived at Aire Street at 16:49:59 and departed at 18:05:20”. At no stage do ParkingEye explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012. It is not in the gift of ParkingEye to substitute "entry/exit" or "length of stay" in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking. I require ParkingEye to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.
    5. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – Non-compliance The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
    "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."
    The PCN in question contains two close-up images of the vehicle. Neither image clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all). One image is so dark that the outline of the car cannot even be distinguished.
    6. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
    The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.
    The Notice to Keeper states: On 06/03/2018 the vehicle: XXXXXX entered Aire Street – Leeds, at 16:49:59 and departed at 18:05:20 on 06/03/18. These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By ParkingEye's own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed.
    Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;
    “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.” Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.
    I require ParkingEye to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
    As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (1 hour 15 minutes and 21 seconds apart), it is vital that ParkingEye produces the evidence
    requested in the previous paragraph.

    PARKINGEYE'S RESPONSE:
    Didn't contest any of my points. They just stated they did have landowner authority and then spend 20 pages focussing on the signage!
    My Comments on their evidence pack:
    ParkingEye has clearly failed to address the numerous points pointed out in my POPLA appeal.

    Grace Periods:
    The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at
    the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start. This as I pointed out in my appeal has been extended to 11 minutes and is applicable at the start AND end of any stay.


    ParkingEye has not produced an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner as requested. They cannot just be taken on their word that this exists. This matter for the reasons laid out in my appeal.



    ParkingEye has no provided evidence of the “period of parking” as stipulated by the BPA code of practice. Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to: “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” The NtK states that the vehicle “Arrived at Aire Street at 16:49:59 and departed at 18:05:20”. At no stage do ParkingEye explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012. It is not in the gift of ParkingEye to substitute "entry/exit" or "length of stay" in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

    My arguments had nothing to do with signage and therefore I am unsure why ParkingEye saw fit to point out their small and inadequate signage in their evidence pack.
    RESULT:
    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor Name : Alexandra Roby
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the motorist did not purchase the appropriate parking time.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver, who is liable for the charge. He states that the signage is small, unlit and poorly located. The appellant has advised that he has provided POPLA with a document containing his grounds of appeal, however no such document has been provided.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions of the site state: “Parking tariffs apply. Weekday: Mon-Fri 8am-6pm: Up to 1 hour…£2.00. Up to 2 hours…£3.00. You can purchase additional time (if required) at the payment machines or by phone before leaving. Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist did not purchase the appropriate parking time. Images from the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 16:49 and exited at 18:05 on the day in question, staying for a total of one hour and 15 minutes. A system generated print out has also been provided, showing that the motorist only made sufficient payment to entitle the vehicle to park at the site for one hour. The appellant’s case is that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver, who is liable for the charge. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is, so I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that the signage is small, unlit and poorly located. When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park. I refer to Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, which states: “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 their vehicle… signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout the site. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park. Furthermore, as the motorist did actually purchase a ticket, I consider that they were already aware of the terms and conditions. Additionally, I do not consider it necessary to address the issue of signage in the dark as it is evident from the ANPR images that it was daylight when the motorist parked. Ultimately, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the motorist did not purchase the appropriate parking time, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appea


    I am unsure of the next steps. Have I missed something? Does paying for parking mean you forgo grace periods? You still need to decide whether to park, take time to pay and also take time to exit.
Page 2
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 11th May 18, 12:10 AM
    • 103 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    Who was the assessor? Although not sure it matters. Seem to make it up as they go along. Poor inconsistencies
    • AGURRU
    • By AGURRU 11th May 18, 12:19 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    AGURRU
    i'm sure i uploaded the document but it's now impossible to tell.

    @silvercloud18 It's in the original post. Don't want to overtly name and shame at this stage.
    • AGURRU
    • By AGURRU 14th May 18, 4:42 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    AGURRU
    Still no news on this. More as it happens.
    • AGURRU
    • By AGURRU 15th May 18, 3:46 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    AGURRU
    So no procedural error has been found because they did not receive my document!

    Absolutely fuming as I prepared a 9 page document on the reasons the PCN was invalid.

    I am not paying them anything. I can't find much more information on the court process or what happens next beyond debt collector letters?

    The post #4 on the FAQ's didn't seem to have the information i expected.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th May 18, 3:50 PM
    • 10,566 Posts
    • 10,958 Thanks
    KeithP
    If you are looking for court information, it is post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread you need to read.

    Post #4 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread is of course still relevant, as you now will be bombarded with debt collector's letters.
    Last edited by KeithP; 15-05-2018 at 4:00 PM.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 18, 3:52 PM
    • 63,827 Posts
    • 76,475 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I can't find much more information on the court process or what happens next beyond debt collector letters?
    Really, despite the NEWBIES thread entire second post being about court stage?

    The posts there are in order of importance, with debt collector stage being unimportant.
    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
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 16th May 18, 6:50 PM
    • 103 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    How long did it take you to come back and acknowledge your complaint?
    • Silvercloud18
    • By Silvercloud18 16th May 18, 6:51 PM
    • 103 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    Silvercloud18
    Take them sorry *^
    • AGURRU
    • By AGURRU 21st May 18, 9:37 AM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    AGURRU
    Took a few working days to come back.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 21st May 18, 10:51 AM
    • 3,907 Posts
    • 4,709 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    So send them, again, your document.
    How did you send it tothem? ANy proof you did?
    • AGURRU
    • By AGURRU 3rd Aug 18, 12:11 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    AGURRU
    LBCCC - Parking Eye - Advice Sought
    Hello Everyone,

    I wanted to start this new thread as I am getting close to the deadline to reply to an LBCCC that I received from ParkingEye.

    I dispute the debt but I want to know do I hurt my future defence if I don't respond with a strongly worded letter pointing out the reasons I do not owe them anything?

    I am at this stage because my original defence document didn't upload at the POPLA stage, therefore I have a list of defence arguments plus some new additional points to make.

    The original POPLA thread I started can be seen here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5840367

    If it's a must to state some or all of my arguments then please let me know and I will draft the response letter and post it here to be reviewed.

    Many Thanks in advance
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 3rd Aug 18, 12:48 PM
    • 3,346 Posts
    • 2,297 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    You don't start new threads if your question relates to an existing situation. Send a PM to a board guide (Crabman, Savy, Soolin) and ask them to merge your threads. Give them the thread numbers.
    • AGURRU
    • By AGURRU 3rd Aug 18, 1:11 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    AGURRU
    Apologies I read the FAQ's which stated to start a new thread. Maybe I jumped the gun on that.
    • AGURRU
    • By AGURRU 4th Aug 18, 9:59 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    AGURRU
    I have requested this thread be joined to the other.

    In the meantime does anyone have any answers to my questions above?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Aug 18, 10:09 PM
    • 20,199 Posts
    • 31,870 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I dispute the debt but I want to know do I hurt my future defence if I don't respond with a strongly worded letter pointing out the reasons I do not owe them anything?
    Word your response as you like, it's yours after all. The advice in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 about how to respond robustly to a LBC is there if you need it.

    Your future defence is a different animal, but you don't want conflicting statements between the LBC response and the eventual defence.

    I am at this stage because my original defence document didn't upload at the POPLA stage, therefore I have a list of defence arguments plus some new additional points to make.
    You wouldn't have been submitting any defence to POPLA, simply an appeal. You can start with that as the basis for your (real) defence. You need to ensure that your defence contains all the points you will rely on, as you can't add to/change them later - well, actually you can, but it will cost you £255 to do so.

    I will draft the response letter and post it here to be reviewed.
    Please post it into your original thread, once you've had this and the original merged. But please explain why you are diverging from the newbies advice if you are asking regulars to spend more of their time to reviewing something off-piste when there's a perfectly adequate template (penned by a practising solicitor - why would you want to ignore that free piece of advice?) available for use.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 04-08-2018 at 10:13 PM.
    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.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 4th Aug 18, 10:10 PM
    • 10,566 Posts
    • 10,958 Thanks
    KeithP
    I wrote this post earlier this evening:


    It may help you too.
    .
    • Crabman
    • By Crabman 5th Aug 18, 10:41 PM
    • 9,708 Posts
    • 7,143 Thanks
    Crabman
    Duplicate threads have been merged
    I'm a Board Guide on the Savings & Investments, ISAs & Tax-free Savings, Public Transport & Cycling, Motoring and Parking Fines, Tickets & Parking Boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Board Guides are not moderators & don't read every post. If you spot a contentious or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com

    • AGURRU
    • By AGURRU 6th Aug 18, 12:57 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    AGURRU
    In my response to the LBCCC there is a request for the contract with the landowner?

    I have seen in some threads that people have been told to remove this line in the hope that the Parking company forgets or doesn't submit it in evidence. Should I leave this out?

    I was planning to use the standard template but I am still unsure whether to state all of my arguments in my first reply or wait until i (maybe) get a response from them and then hit them with all of my points.

    My thinking is that they want to keep me in the dark as much as possible regarding their evidence etc so until things progress I should do similar to them? If they are automated claims then my response isn't likely to make much difference?
    Last edited by AGURRU; 06-08-2018 at 1:04 PM. Reason: More questions added.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 6th Aug 18, 1:03 PM
    • 3,907 Posts
    • 4,709 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Dont leave it out. You want to see it.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 7th Aug 18, 5:56 AM
    • 3,769 Posts
    • 6,178 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    AFAIR the issue is not the PE/Client contract that is the problem with this site, it is the Client/Landowner one.

    Can't recall any of these claims actually going all the way.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
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

310Posts Today

4,267Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Thank you to the team at the Westen eye hospital a&e. I scratched my eye ball in my sleep, then woke up with pain.? https://t.co/VJMwQfsRxv

  • I've just heard about the 8 month pregnant woman shot through the stomach by a crossbow. Its both evil and medie? https://t.co/hQTOxWiXhj

  • Major new guide... Brexit, what it means for you and your finances: M mortgages, savings, flights, consumer rights? https://t.co/SXCMG2qXwX

  • Follow Martin