Contract between Land Owner and Parking Operator

[Scrumpy11]

Operators defence - please note, there is a lot of reference to evidence supplied. The Courts and I have not received one shred of evidence, just whats bellow:

The Claimant Scrumpy of Winifride Court, Albert Road, Harbourne, Birmingham B17 0AN is claiming he received a parking charge notice on the 25th January 2019 for not displaying a valid parking permit this statement is true. Please see Photo graphic evidence enclosed

Scrumpy also stated he did not receive a fair right of appeal this statement us untrue as scrumpy appealed not only to our appeals department but to our higher body the IAS both appeals were rejected as photographic evidence showed there was n valid permit on display


Scrumpy has also stated our actual signs are insufficient and did not conform to current regulations.

Before we can start patrolling a site we have a site and sign audit from our higher body and once this has been passed by them we can start patrolling the site. This site had passed the audit. Please see evidence pack.

Scrumpy states he did not enter into a contractual agreement with us. Once a person enters a car park and parks their car they have entered into a contract. Please see evidence of a sign that is erected on the car park

Scrumpy states that CMS was not managing Winifride Court in Aug 11 with M Housing later tok over by c housing, unfortunately we do not have the original contract from m housing as this was destroyed when c housing took over. I have included the last contract that was signed by M Housing and also the current contract we hold with c housing

Scrumpy also states when entering the carpark there is a sign that was erected by the Housing before they entered into a contract with ourselves saying "Private Road Car Parking for Residents and Visitors only". The sign does not belong to ourselves and we have no authority to take the sign down.

Scrumpy states in Q21 that a sign that was erected was an old company sign with a piece of paper stuck on top. This sign should have been removed when the operatives were replacing the other signs to comply with the GDPR ruling but forgot to take it down, once we realised that this sign had not been removed we told our operative to go back and take the sign down.

When we first entered into the contract with M Housing later C Housing we were not informed they were two separate car parks with two separate addresses but once it was pointed out to ourselves we ceased all patrols on the site and closed Scrumpys case

Scrumpy has never paid for either PCN's he received and both cases are closed. Scrumpy asked up to cancel the PCN he had received in January 2019, as the contract is with the landowner it is only the landowner that has the authority yo cancel PCN's which are issued on site

We moved from 55 St Leonards Road West as the building kept flooding due to heavy downfalls. The maintenance was insufficient and the building was deteriorating rapidly. For this reason we had to move quickly into a temporary location. The new location was shared with other companies and had an open door policy and no reception or security. As you can appreciate the nature of our business means we often receive unhappy and irate customers e could not allow this to happen at the temporary location. We had arranged for all mail addressed to us that was sent to '55 St Leonards Road West' to be held back at the main post office and collected along with our PO Box mail. We have since moved to.... where there is a reception and sufficient security

We did seek advice about the registered office and was told as long as we could retrieve our post we could use this address. This is the reason we did not change the address for the registered office until we found somewhere secure where people could not walk in uninvited.

We have now re-registered or address with companies house to a secure building a few months ago and have let other organisations that we are members with know.

The claimant states he wants compensation for harassment and time spent on letters ect. I believe we have not harassed him and as soon as we were asked by the land owner to close the case we did. I also feel scrumpy has done everything in his power to make life difficult for our business making complaints to IAS, DVLA, Companies House on more than one occasion and therefore there has been no breach. I do not believe scrumpy is out of pocket due to our actions and feel we owe him nothing.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CMS have provided no evidence to myself, not the courts. The company has ignored all my complaints including my 'Letter before County Curt Claim'

I made the company aware of issues regarding signage in sept 18, yet they only changed it in March 19 to signs which they had already stated on the 8th March to the IAS were already in place. The company lied in my appeal with no chance of redress.

The land owner requested several times for the PCN to be cancelled, to no avail. I received a final letter from ZZPS stating it was being passed to a solicitors. It was only when I requested for disclosure from the IPC, complaint 34, that it was cancelled due to being issued incorrectly.. The IPC wont elaborate on this any further.

CMS have relied upon signage from a carpark I did not use, the signs are completely different in both car parks. The IPC said this does not matter, its down to the wording of the signs, not the signs themselves. The sign which was the entrance sign to the carpark I used was an old companies sign with a pobox address, premium phone number and purported CMS to be a member of the BPA of which they left in 2013/ 2014.

I cannot see how it took 19 months for the to find alternative address to register their company from. I believe they only updated the address due to my complaints. Adams signs and CMS are the same, its a family run business that every time the one moved the other went with it, so why not this time? Why does the directors still have one other parking company still being operated from their former address?

Most of CMS's defence s lies.

[Scrumpy11]

Before you do, you might want to read the guidance on the .Gov website as it does actually say at 4.1 that you can request the title number if you think you know the title is registered and you have a postal address. That might save you time and money on a SIM search.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...fficial-copies

Thank you Rob, you have been a great help

[Scrumpy11]

I do have a question regarding the operators defence:

In the defence he has referred on several occasions, please refer to evidence. I have requested a copy of the evidence from the court yet none has been supplied. Can the operator just turn up to court and produce this evidence without my seeing it before the case date?

[R0b]

Sorry Scrumpy, it's not clear what the current situation is. Have you issued a claim against CMs and if so on what basis? Or are you defending a claim with a counterclaim?

[Scrumpy11]

Afternoon Rob,

I have issued a claim against CMS for breach of the GDOR. They had no reasonable cause accessing and sharing my personal data with third parties, such as I pay my PCN and zaps LTD. Housing are joint data controllers, so served jointly.

There are lots of reasons, signage did not conform to regulations, I was not parked in location they stated. cms lied to the ias regarding signage at our scheme
ect..


The company was operating illegally by issuing pcn's from an address in which they no longer occupy nor have permission to use.. they are operating for no address.

I will attach a copy of the n1 form.on my next break.

thank you

[Scrumpy11]

my main aim is to get rid of this company from our scheme. the only ones affected are residents and visitors. some of which are elderly

[R0b]

I don't know what, if any, assistance you've been given on your claim or whether you did it off your own back but the signage not conforming to regulations, breach of company disclosures are all separate and non-relevant to a GDPR claim.

The main focus of your claim ought to have been that CMS had no lawful or otherwise legitimate reason to obtain your details from the DVLA and then continue to process your data because the extent of their contract is Winifride Court, 2 War Lane and that is not the address at which you parked.

Not sure how you can implicate the housing group if they aren't sharing data with CMS, rather they would be independent controllers. For example, if CMS obtained your details through the DVLA and not the housing group, then they would be a controller in their own right, not joint.

Probably best to wait and see what you've drafted before speculating any further.

[Scrumpy11]

off my own back as you could tell.

Housing have admitted to being joint controllers. It has taken my 10months to obtain a copy of the contract, I have only just recieved it as part of defence to claim. I have requested via subject order request and part of my letter before county court claim. yet denied a copy.

CMS have ignored my letter before county court claim.. not sure if that means anything.

I guess I wanted to show the company up as the scammers they are.. housing are just along to see.

in CMS defence they stated they did not realise it was two carparks.. could this be an admission of guilt?

sorry, I'm no legal expert and I cannot afford to seek help

[Scrumpy11]

Hi Rob. you have given me a lot to think about. thank you. I will upload my claim one home from work, unless I can fit it in during my process.

[R0b]

It's easy to get carried away and throw the kitchen sink at it but that's not always helpful. two or three strong arguments are going to fare better than six or seven mediocre arguments, but I'm sure you'll learn from the process of going through this.

As I understand it, the GDPR (and previous versions) creates a strict liability offence in so far as controllers need to demonstrate compliance and must show that they have satisfied one of the lawful conditions for processing your data. Either the controller has processed the data lawfully or it hasn't, it's not good enough to say that you have tried your best.

The only valid condition I could see CMS argue is that they had a legitimate interest in pursuing you on the basis of a contract and are in breach of it. But since they had no authority for that section of the land, the legitimate interest condition then falls away. So there's likely to be a breach, I guess it would come down to how much they have to pay in damages and that will depend on what diligence they carried out as to the boundaries of 2 War Lane. If they did bugger all and made an assumption, then that is ultimately their negligence. The Contract should have attached a plan delineating the extent of 2 War Lane which would have made it much more clear as to how far their authority goes for issuing tickets. The fact that there is no through road, installed fencing separating car parks ought to have given them reasonable suspicion.

However, like many dodgy or underhand parking companies in this industry, they don't give a toss unless it is they who are under the microscope and then try to act all innocent.

Out of curiosity, how much are you seeking in compensation?

[Scrumpy11]

Here is my Claim against both parties... Unfortunately, I may have thrown the kitchen sink, kitchen and whole house in.

To be fair, the money does not bother me. I just want the Operator exposed for the scammers that they are, I hope my Housing take notice but from their response I doubt they will do anything. They defended MPC after the BBC's inside out programme showed them for the scammers that they were. They lasted 2 to 3 months before we got rid of them. However, my housing has amalgamated two to three times since then, although same staff.

If I win this then I want to go after the DVLA and the IPC... The IPC have taken my complaints and used them to bring their member inline with regulations... Dismissing my complaints without consideration.

[Scrumpy11]

My HA's defence, to give clearer picture..

In the HA's response to my 'Letter before County Court Claim' the HA stated, "CH appointed CMS to manage its parking scheme on its behalf however in relation to processing of personal data cms and the Ha act as joint controllers."

[R0b]

First thoughts are that yes, you've thrown the kitchen sink and alot of it is irrelevant - it's an awfully longwinded particulars of claim. Also I reckon your damages is probably too high for a particular claim like this and I would suspect the judge may think so too.

I'm surprised the housing group admits being a joint controller because I wouldn't have necessarily agreed. Joint controllers determine the purposes of the processing and the means together, for example if a local council and police force set up CCTV monitoring in the area, they would be considered joint controllers. CMS determines how your vehicle registration is used, in this case to the DVLA and so on - housing group admit that in their defence, so I would be inclined to suggest they are separate controllers in that respect. Anyway, by the by since I don't think you've got a chance against the housing group for the reasons they have given.

Very much doubt you'd have recourse against the DVLA as they'd probably cry abuse of process or double recovery. You can't bring the same claim again and recover another amount when the matter has already been decided, you should have listed the DVLA as defendants too. As for the IPC, can't see any grounds for a claim against them, they're a third party independent in all of this except for the appeal process. That makes it so much more difficult to claim bring a valid legal claim.

Seems to me you are using the courts as some kind of improper, underlying purpose. The courts don't care about individuals, who want to expose one's practices, tactics or conduct, they are there to apply the law (not morals) as it is. Of course there are reasonable grounds for breach of the GDPR but if you aren't interested in the money or the rbeach, then I don't see how going to court achieves your goal.

Your case is very much a regular pattern I see with individuals, not sitting down and thinking through their claim but making lots of allegations in the hope something sticks which is likely to hamper the claim rather than improve it.

If the claim has been allocated to the small claims track you may want to consider offering to withdraw your claim against the housing group and focus on CMS. As the small claims track limits costs, they wouldn't be able to get their costs back unless you agreed or they made an application for costs due to unreasonable conduct, which rarely happens.

Or, you might want to narrow down the issues and agree between all three parties that the focus is on the GDPR breach so negligence, non-compliance with TDR or signare regulations can all be chucked aside as that has nothing to do with GDPR, but that is up to you.

Whatever the outcome, win or lose, I'm sure it will be an experience for you but I think for the most part of your claim, you are going to be on to a loser bar the actual GDPR point against CMS.

[Scrumpy11]

Hi Rob,

I really appreciate your advice and have taken it on board. the case has not been allocated yet as I have only just recieved the defence. I have just been asked if I want to go to mediation or if I'm happy straight to court.

How do you let the courts know that you want to dismiss part of claim, basically restructuring it around contract?

The housing is easy to contact, cms have never responded to any of my correspondence, regardless of old or new virtual office. the virtual office send all their correspondence to ZZPS LTD, which seems strange to me. The people at the virtual office have been informed by CMS that this is their head office when in fact it's a sepporate company, an unlicensed debt collector to boot... but I guess all that don't matter as restructuring.

This claim is not just about myself, it's about the other residents whom have been affected. We have never agreed to CMS being introduced, which it stated in contract we should be consulted with regards to all Site management.

Since this new company has taken over, everything has gone to pop, they dont cate about residents, all that want is their money. none of us are happy. A few are taking them to court for different reasons.

My housing said, your argument is with CMS, not us, which is fine if they would answer complaints.

cms issue tickets then give all information to ipaytopcn, part of zappos, the unlicensed debt collector operated by g Olsen as you are most likely aware. the whole system stinks as you will never get a fair appeal.

CMS stated that they cancelled the PCN at request of ha, this is false. it was cancelled after 34 complaints to the ipc. it was OP only when I requested permission for disclosure that they cancelled it, just before it went to solicitors.

I guess your right, I am not happy and should have stepped back as it is personal.

in 2005 my housing instructed mpc. we were not even issued permits as they had just been introduced. I went on a first date and she was towed demanding £385 to retrieve her vehicle. I took them to court, recieved death threats, phone calls to work ect... my ha did not want to know. They should not be putting us in this position there are elderly at our scheme, the one lady has paid 4 pcn's for her daughter. Another resident has caught them using predatory tactics by spying through a whole in the fence.

but I guess all that is irrelevant to my case. I think I'm moving next year after 24 years here

[Scrumpy11]

Hi Rob

This is why I included the signage. Although after your advice, I am no longer sure.

Sign 1 was an entrance sign, I made CMS aware if the sign in September 18, as they was supposed to have changed signs in August 10 to bring in line with the GPDR. CMS stated they missed this one.

Sign 2 - This is on the right of the carpark and as you enter the carpark you cannot see it as its obscured by a fence, although I am 99% sure this was not there on the date of alleged contravention.

it.

and was certainly not there is September despite CMS stating it was there a month prior, August 18.

Sign (3) is obscured by a hedge and if a vehicle was parked in front of it you would not see the sign

Sign (4) This is not well lit and as you may notice is hard to see as its too low and obscured by parked vehicles.


Non of the signs in the carpark are well lit and are all too low. This coupled by the fact that CMS never gave any of the signage in the carpark as evidence as they used different signs used in a separate carpark added to the fact that I never entered into any contract with them.

This was my trail though, not so sure now as you have presented me with a great defence.

My question is, should I remove this from my claim?

Thanks

Stevieb