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
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 15th Sep 18, 11:23 PM
    • 50Posts
    • 29Thanks
    sparkyhx
    OK whats my next move?
    • #1
    • 15th Sep 18, 11:23 PM
    OK whats my next move? 15th Sep 18 at 11:23 PM
    Hello you good people. I've been lurking for a while and pretty much got 10 months down the line following all the guides, but I've now come to a bit of an impass.

    BACKGROUND INFO
    received a parking ticket last December, we appealed largely on the grounds the signage was not clear i.e. sign at entrance referred to full conditions at pay station, which contradicted other signs elsewhere which were small, high up, and it was those that had the rule that was contravened. Namely you must buy a ticket within 10 mins of ENTERING the car park. The other sign said ticket was required for PARKING. The car park in question is very small and its usual to see people waiting for a space (i.e. not parked).
    I believe case law says waiting is not parking.
    3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014).

    There are other issues but the primary one is as above.

    HISTORY & TIMELINE
    1. Ticket Received 17 Dec.
    2. Appealed immediately and Requested further info - info was not received
    3. 22nd Dec - appeal denied - no surprise there.
    4. June 5 - LBC was received - responded to immediately and additional info was requested again (originally requested 20 Dec)
    5. July 11 - email response from Gladstones to June 5 reply - completely inadequate info from Gladstones
    6. July 25 - replied that still inadequate info from Gladstones
    7. 15th Sept (>3 months from original LBC) partial additional info supplied in an email NOT a revised LBC -
    • still not met the 30 day guide in the PAP guidelines - does it matter they did not comply with guidelines?
    • in an email not a revised LBC - should they issue a new LBC - does it matter?
    MY REQUESTS AND GLADSTONES RESPONSES
    1. an explanation of the cause of action
    Response from Gladstones - The motorist entered into a contract as soon as he parked on the land our Client is contractually obligated to manage. The contract was to park in accordance with the sign or, in the event the motorist did not wish to comply, pay a charge of £100 for the 'privilege' of parking otherwise than in accordance with the signs at the site. This payment was due imminently and by not paying the charge, the motorist breached the contract. - we are back to the original grounds for appeal here - inconsistent signs therefore unknown what I need to comply with?
    2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
    Response from Gladstones - You are presumed to be the driver, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, until you prove otherwise. It is the registered keepers obligation to prove otherwise as it is safe to assume the registered keeper is also the driver of the vehicle. - no surprises there, we still haven't admitted who was the driver
    3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    Response from Gladstones - Our Client is not relying on these provisions.-
    no idea what this means of if the response even makes sense - any ideas?
    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
    Response from Gladstones - basically don't say - they just refer to the original LBC, which doesn't actually state anything
    5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, provide a copy of that contract bearing my signature. Or is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    This has been previously addressed - ok they kinda have
    6. 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
    Response from Gladstones -This is irrelevant at this stage, your contract is solely and primarily with our Client. I thought the landowner must be the client not the leaseholder - are they being evasive? or is this a valid response - should I push it under PAP
    7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
    This is irrelevant. This will be provided as and when the Court orders. - Really is this a valid response?
    8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    Response from Gladstones - This is irrelevant. Really is this a valid response? or should I push it under PAP
    9. Details of the additions to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.
    Response from Gladstones - The amount of £60 is a predetermined loss and added to the original charge as a nominal contribution to the Client's losses, the time spent faciliting the debt when this is not their main duty. - valid response?
    So the ask here is what do I do next. I'm pretty sure they don't have a leg to stand on if it does go to court, bearing in mind the signage discrepancies They still haven't answered all the questions so do I just bounce them back again asking them to answer the missing info on PAP grounds?
    Do I need to re-respond to the LBC - there is no new one - so I don't see how I can?

    As a slight aside they have fixed the sign discrepancy now, but you still have to go to the paystation to see all the details - i.e. if you are waiting you still wouldn't know till too late. and then there is the case law re 'waiting' not being parking. just a thought, do the changed signs act in my favour?

    Thanks for reading
    Last edited by sparkyhx; 15-09-2018 at 11:30 PM.
Page 4
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 29th Nov 18, 2:56 PM
    • 50 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    ok, i'm back on after 2 days of attempting and failing to unblock me, I got my ISP to change my IP -

    Thanks Coupon mad, that's helpful.

    I've tried several searches but don't seem to get an answer :-
    The guidelines are there and seem fairly clear, why don't the parking companies fix the NTK's to make them POFA compliant? It seems bizarre they deliberately don't follow process and continue to not follow process, surely it would be easy to correct them and remove the defence

    Or am I missing something?
    I got the claimants Directions Questionnaire and request to go 'on paper' by email. I am still waiting for the postal copy for me to reply.

    However, in the meantime

    I acknowledge your request, but will be strongly objecting to a decision on papers and be requesting an Oral Hearing.

    You can of course minimise your costs by stopping this pointless exercise. We both know you will lose in court and be forced to pay costs, you and your predecessors obviously haven’t read the defence otherwise it would not have reached this far. You are just going through the motions of the next step of a robo-flowchart.

    I will give you this final opportunity now to stop this, if you choose not to, then please be aware I have every intention of taking this all the way and I will no doubt see you (well, your representative) in court.
    ............I can hope



    Regards
    Last edited by sparkyhx; 29-11-2018 at 3:00 PM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 29th Nov 18, 3:04 PM
    • 21,798 Posts
    • 27,388 Thanks
    Redx
    I the guidelines are there and seem fairly clear, why don't the parking companies fix the NTK's to make them POFA compliant? It seems bizarre they deliberately don't follow process and continue to not follow process, surely it would be easy to correct them and remove the defence

    Or am I missing something?
    Originally posted by sparkyhx
    yes you are missing something , its in their interests to keep it complicated and fool the public and not comply with any laws, especially when parliament didnt make it MANDATORY

    what you are missing is the 18 month debate so far by MP,s on these issues, so read this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5929244 and read some of the posts by THE DEEP where he lists the iplayer videos you can watch

    lets assume that before this time next year the new CoP will be in place and let us hope they make POFA2012 mandatory and not discretionary as it is now

    think of it as like the traffic light system on labelling, its been around for 5 years yet Kelloggs are only just starting it from jan 2019 !! (despite Hugh Fearmley Whittingstall taking them to task over it last year) - ie:- its not mandatory, but it SHOULD BE
    Last edited by Redx; 27-02-2019 at 12:12 AM.
    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
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Nov 18, 3:49 PM
    • 5,010 Posts
    • 6,101 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    I would suggest you ensure you inform them of your intention to claim full costs, as they are fuly aware they have no reasonable prospectt of success, and are behaving unreasonably by making this claim.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Nov 18, 12:55 AM
    • 68,527 Posts
    • 80,756 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Some do fix their NTKs. CEL, Britannia and NCP recently have done.
    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
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 30th Nov 18, 8:50 AM
    • 5,010 Posts
    • 6,101 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Its just amazing it took them 6 years to do so
    POFA compliance isnt even hard.
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 30th Nov 18, 11:01 AM
    • 50 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    @nosferatu

    That's the bit that's puzzling me - its not hard - so why do they not fix them and remove that one particular 'get out' for the keeper? From what I can gather - if they follow the correct process there is no argument - responsibility is the keepers. Is it just laziness?

    The keeper is then left arguing other points.
    Ah well, all hail non POFA NTK's

    re-claiming costs.........all done.
    I wonder how many and how frequent SAR's can you put in before you get refused.
    Last edited by sparkyhx; 30-11-2018 at 11:03 AM.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 30th Nov 18, 11:12 AM
    • 2,179 Posts
    • 2,925 Thanks
    Castle
    I wonder how many and how frequent SAR's can you put in before you get refused.
    Originally posted by sparkyhx
    Every time you pass an ANPR camera your personal data is being captured and then processed; so you could send a SAR every time you use an ANPR car park.
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 30th Nov 18, 11:25 AM
    • 50 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    technically, but there is an 'excessive request' clause allowing them to refuse/charge a fee.

    Mind you even proccessing the request and 'refusing' will cost them :-)
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 30th Nov 18, 2:11 PM
    • 5,010 Posts
    • 6,101 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You can also argue that, as thi sis a new event with a new data capture, thi sis not excessive - yo are not asking for the same data, but new data. Then if they refuse, complain to the ICO who will cahrge them for investingating them...
    • Castle
    • By Castle 30th Nov 18, 2:17 PM
    • 2,179 Posts
    • 2,925 Thanks
    Castle
    You can also argue that, as thi sis a new event with a new data capture, thi sis not excessive - yo are not asking for the same data, but new data. Then if they refuse, complain to the ICO who will cahrge them for investingating them...
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Indeed; simply restrict your enquiry to a specific but different month each time. It quite easy to visit 20-30 car parks in a month, each visit meaning a new contract.
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 30th Nov 18, 2:55 PM
    • 50 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    oh I do like the sound of that, we probably use the same car park weekly
    • Castle
    • By Castle 30th Nov 18, 2:57 PM
    • 2,179 Posts
    • 2,925 Thanks
    Castle
    oh I do like the sound of that, we probably use the same car park weekly
    Originally posted by sparkyhx
    if you do, make sure you ask for the photographs for each visit!
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 1st Dec 18, 4:17 PM
    • 50 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    I'm also insured to drive 5 cars at the moment............even more fun.
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 21st Dec 18, 7:23 PM
    • 50 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    Anyway things have gone very quiet.
    20/11 - filed defence thru MCOL
    27/11 - I had a email from Gladstones saying they will be applying for hearing on paper and sent a copy of the directions questionnaire and N180 Special Direction 'letter'
    27/11 - sent reply to Gladstones by email saying - no way - I will object and insist on oral hearing and will be seeking costs when the paperwork arrives


    nothing - diddly squat
    No paperwork has arrived from the court service. Does this mean anything? or are the court just a bit slow, I'm worried in case I've missed something, I don't want a 'default' situation happening.


    On a separate note...……………..
    I finally got some of the info I requested several times already, but this time through a GDPR request. The principle piece being when the parking ticket was actually bought on the day in question (we didn't keep it)


    The time of the parking ticket and the 10 mins 'grace' end...…………………….wait for it...………………...47 seconds late. 47 f*cking seconds, after waiting for a space to become free.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 21st Dec 18, 7:33 PM
    • 13,589 Posts
    • 14,790 Thanks
    KeithP
    Does MCOL show that the CCBC has sent you a DQ?

    Perhaps you should download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

    Here's a tip: fill in that form online before printing - it'll be easier and neater.
    .
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 21st Dec 18, 8:19 PM
    • 50 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    I cant get into MCOL - it just doesn't seem to accept I've ever been on it, cant do a password reset just keeps saying not registered or words to that effect - I rang up a few weeks ago and they said they were about 7 days behind but could see my case and the fact I had filed my defence, but that I didn't need to log in ever again as it was all thru post. Tried ringing this morning but neither number would even ring (it just cut me off) let along get through to a queue.

    Ok tried again and now i'm in WTF.

    No, there is no mention of DQ. The last 'event' is acknowledgement of service and acknowledgement of defence - so looks like Gladstones are sitting on the next action - they sent ME the forms via email but not sent to the court...………….might be they've eventually given up after I told them I would be objecting to on paper hearing?

    So as per the Sticky - I still await for the DQ from the court.
    Last edited by sparkyhx; 21-12-2018 at 8:57 PM.
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 10th Jan 19, 10:30 AM
    • 50 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    Hi All, I've just had an email from the court service and they have said

    " Please be advised that the case is now stayed due to inactivity. You are not required to do anything further at this point. "

    I filed my defence on 20 November -

    Gladstones emailed me a copy of the Directions Q and N180 on the 27th Nov, but have NOT submitted either to the courts.


    Does it look like they are giving up? or should I not read anything into it?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jan 19, 2:58 PM
    • 68,527 Posts
    • 80,756 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You have won (kind of...unless they pay £100 to reinstate it!).

    Don't hold your breath as they do sometimes...but for now let's call it a win, and another one bites the dust!

    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
    • John Blaze
    • By John Blaze 13th Jan 19, 12:41 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    John Blaze
    Based on the ambiguous responses I personally would call their bluff and await them to begin legal proceedings. I can't advise others to do this if they are not prepared for the consequences but I find that where there is doubt and uncertainty the claimant rarely takes the matter to court. It would go to the small claims track and they would spend more than they would recoup. It's rare costs are granted in the small claims. I had a similar issue with a ticket from my local council, i refused to pay, appealed, they rejected, appealed to their internal appeals dept, they rejected, luckily at this point it goes to an independent barrister who I had to visit for an appt where she would decide. She had read the evidence and decided before i stepped through the door and spoke, once I entered she told she would rule in my favour.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jan 19, 5:53 PM
    • 68,527 Posts
    • 80,756 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Council PCNs are not similar at all, and they go to adjudication.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,025Posts Today

5,056Users online

Martin's Twitter