**DISCONTINUED!!** Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Thanks for the advice. I'm proposing to email the court and ask that the issue of non compliant notice to keeper be added to my defence. Here's the proposed text. I'd appreciate any suggested amendments

The Notice to keeper (NTK) sent to me on 11 May 2017 does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, SCHEDULE 4, Recovery of unpaid parking charges.

Paragraph 8(2) of PoFA states the notice must;

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

No period of parking is specified on the NTK


(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
The NTK does not invite, it states that I am now required, which is not the wording required by PoFA

(f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

The NTK is not in this form


(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

The NTK does give instructions for payment but does not identify the creditor


Since PCM have failed to meet several requirements of the PoFA 2012 as defined in section 8(2) there can be no keeper liability. The claim has no basis and I invite the court to strike it out.

[charitynjw]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

If your defence has only just been filed, email the court & respecfully request that the lease issue is added to your defence.

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Put '[Parking co name per court claim form] v [you] Court claim no [XXXXXXXX] Addition to filed defence' in subject box.

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Yeah. You are right. Initially I just thought they would blow a lot of wind and then go away if I didn't cough up easily, so i ignored them. In hindsight , should have got advice from you guys and nipped it all in he bud earlier.

Is it an option to go online and add non complaince of NTK to my defence ? I could do that tomorrow and still meet the deadline .

[ostell]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Shame you didn't get it in first as with non compliance there is no case and any action is vexatious.

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Hi Ostell
Thank you for your comments. I do feel that PCM are using their position to intimidate lay people like myself like me into paying and it is much appreciated to have the informed support of you and your colleagues to help redress that balance.
I have today posted my defence N9B as the deadline is this wednesday and it seemed prudent to allow an extra day just in case , so it is too late to add the points about NTK being non-compliant. I have asked for them to disclose all relevant material including, but not limited to
- proof of their claims
- Proof of right of authority
- genuine pre estimate of loss ( I've used to arguments from this forum to show why Beavis does not apply in this situation.)

I have requested an opportunity to amend my case when they do provide additional documentation

Should I keep the matter of non compliance of the NTK until that point in time or would it be good to write to Gladstones pointing out the non compliance at this point , in the hope that they will withdraw ?

As I have said in another post the lease says nothing at all about parking. However the managing agents have said that they are willing to provide a letter which confirms that by virtue of his tenancy my son has the right to park in those spaces. At the time he took out the lease there was no control over parking and it was only midway through the term that parking control was introduced and the residents were issued with permits. however the lease was never updated to include that, which is unfortunate. I'll get a letter from them if this case ever does go to court.

[ostell]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

The NTK does not really comply with POFA .
It states that you are required to pay or name the driver. The word should be invite. 8 (2) (e) There is no required in at all.

8 (2) starts with the word "must"
Paragraph 8 (2) (f) has not been given in the form required in POFA
There is no period of parking stated 8 (2) (a)
There is no creditor identified 8 (2) (h)

I think, in the first instance, a letter to them saying that there can be no keeper liability as the have failed to meet several of the requirements of POFA 2012 that are defined in paragraph 8 (2) of the act.

Does the NTK have the same information as the NTD?

Other items, such as the permit was visible, if they could have been bothered to look properly,

What does the lease say about parking? Does it identify the parking spaces and does it state a permit must be displayed and a charge must be paid if not?

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Thanks Kati.

[Kati]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

FYI - your full name is still clear in the body of the letter, along with the location of the alleged offence. Worth obscuring and reposting

sorted xx

[OliverJames]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

As requested, Attached is the original Notice to keeper front and rear.
I've now got a copy of the lease but have problems redacting it to post. I can confirm that it says nothing about parking. it's a long list of things the tenant must and must not do, with remarkably few obligations on the landlord. However the managing agent is being helpful and has said that they are willing to provide a letter on their headed paper confirming that the tenant had a right to park in the adjoining car park. I may take that up if this case does go to court. In which case I'd appreciate guidance on what wording I should ask for.

For clarity, the car park in question is a multi storey car park situated behind the property. Some bays are allocated for use by residents of that block of flats. However specific bays are not allocated to specific flats. My son was parked in one of the bays allocated to his block. PCM's argument seems to be that the permit was not clearly displayed. You can see from my initial post that the permit is displayed although partially obscured by the tinting of the windscreen.

FYI - your full name is still clear in the body of the letter, along with the location of the alleged offence. Worth obscuring and reposting

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

As requested, Attached is the original Notice to keeper front and rear.
I've now got a copy of the lease but have problems redacting it to post. I can confirm that it says nothing about parking. it's a long list of things the tenant must and must not do, with remarkably few obligations on the landlord. However the managing agent is being helpful and has said that they are willing to provide a letter on their headed paper confirming that the tenant had a right to park in the adjoining car park. I may take that up if this case does go to court. In which case I'd appreciate guidance on what wording I should ask for.

For clarity, the car park in question is a multi storey car park situated behind the property. Some bays are allocated for use by residents of that block of flats. However specific bays are not allocated to specific flats. My son was parked in one of the bays allocated to his block. PCM's argument seems to be that the permit was not clearly displayed. You can see from my initial post that the permit is displayed although partially obscured by the tinting of the windscreen.

[ostell]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

For a brach of the DPA they are chasing him for parking when they knew they did not have the right to obtain his data from the DVLA as he was in his own space and a permit on display.

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

That's good information that Beavis doesn't apply in a residential situation.Thank you. I can use that in my defence response. My son has since moved out and hasn't kept a copy of his lease. I've asked him to try to get one from the managing agents. He insists it doesn't say anything about parking specifically, but i'd like to see it. As a minimum I'm hoping it will say something about right to access communal areas, in which case I'll try to argue that the associated parking is part of the communal area.

What is the potential breach of DPA ?

- - - Updated - - -

Im currently away from home but I will scan and post the original notice on my return.

[charitynjw]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Could you also post up the original postal Notice to Keeper, front & rear, obscure personal details but leave all times & dates visible?

& for clarity, was there a winscreen PCN?
If so, post that up as well.

[ostell]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Beavis does not apply in a residential situation as there is no necessity to maintain a turnover of cars. What does you lease say about parking, have you got your own allocated space defined in your lease?

Assuming you have the space in your lease the permit, which you are not required to display, is displayed as a courtesy to aid the operatives in identifying strangers.

Can you post relevant portion of your lease and the signs in the car park.

You could be going after PCM for £500 for a breach of the DPA.

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Hi Ostell
I've just spent some time going through the Beavis case.
If I understod correctly this was about motorist who overstayed their permitted time. It was ruled that the charge was not a "penalty" and was commercially justifiable as it served to deter other motorists from outstaying their time.
In my case the parked car was parked with the landholders permission .The driver had been issued with a permit confiring that permission and this was displayed on the dash. Can I argue that the charge is therefore some kind of penalty because the permit was partially obscured ? Therefore it is a penalty, and is subject to the rules regarding penalties, including GPEOL