Pay within 10 min PCN PPS IAS

[jadm]

Morning folks,

Could do with some of your combined brain power on a parking legal matter -

I was issued a PCN via ANPR for not having a ticket. Initially I thought it was a mistake as the driver did have a ticket with sufficient value to cover the whole parking session (vehicle entering to vehicle leaving site). I advised the operator (PPS) that there was a ticket in place and they confirmed they could see the ticket on their system.
This is where it gets weird, they rejected the appeal as a ticket must be purchased within 10min of entering the site. They're not claiming for damages or losses but due to a breach of contract.
The signage onsite doesn't mention any 10-min window, and merely states, "pay in full before you leave". (para 11 - https://1drv.ms/i/s!Ar9GWWvIvORYulIJfnq9k_ibDwlq)
... they advised to create a case with IAS (it says independent in the name, so muse be fair right? ), and the case got dismissed after several weeks.

I have now received what I believe is a LBC, threatening county court action.

It appears this operator is devoid of any reasonable conduct, as they have sent wholly illegible/pixelated images in response to me requesting the signage onsite, made claims (i.e. all machines accept card) that I proved wrong, inconsistent signage across the site, lack of signage for alternative payments, essentially making up T&Cs as they go along, quoted a T&C that doesn't exist on signage onsite so they used images of signage from another site and cropped out the location of said signage, sent a map of the various signs and payment points which is inaccurate.

Would someone from this community be willing to take a look at this and advise if I'm misled?
From my understanding this has no legal basis, in terms of unfair terms, consumer contract law, and common sense really, however I don't possess the ability to articulate these arguments in a legal technical manner

Thanks so much!

[Kati]

Re: Pay within 10 min PCN PPS IAS

tagging [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] [MENTION=39331]ostell[/MENTION]

[Amethyst]

Re: Pay within 10 min PCN PPS IAS

Just putting the picture directly on here for ease. Presumably this is the actual one from the car park you parked in.

Pay in Full before you leave is a bit of an odd term to have in a pay & display car park - maybe it's the parking companies not quite figuring out how to handle ticketing when people might use apps like Ringgo to pay ( and not display ) I used Ringgo for the first time the other day, weird knowing you're at the mercy of the app having reported your registration and times correctly and having no ticket displayed - don't think I'll use it again, prefer hard evidence that I paid.

Can you upload the signage they sent you as their evidence ? If it is as you say it is bizarre you failed your appeal. Unless maybe you purchased a ticket after the ticket was issued? ( but then if you paid for the period you were in the car park up to the point of the ticket until leaving that clause 11 on the sigh would seem to cover it )

( someone who can actually helprather than ramble on will be along soon )

[ostell]

Re: Pay within 10 min PCN PPS IAS

I agree with the OP, where is the condition that you must pay within 10 minutes of entering the site? It is a silly condition, unless it is writ large at the entrance as you can't agree to a contract unless you've seen the conditions, and tthe conditions on that sign wouldn't be readable from a moving car. Don't expect the IAS to uphold an appeal anyway.

Can you post up the letter you received. It could be a bluff and bluster letter from a debt collector. Was it DRP or Zenith? Also post up the PCN, though if the driver has been identified there would not be much point.

[jadm]

Re: Pay within 10 min PCN PPS IAS

Thanks for the quick responses, makes me feel like I'm not going delusional... so thanks

I'll post a copy when I get home, but it was from the operator themselves. Essentially just stating the IAS appeal was dismissed, pay up or else CCJ.
On that note what is the "code of conduct" here? Conscious that operators or their legal monkeys could frequent this site and put this case at a disadvantage - Does it make sense to share offline and once this has come to conclusion share with the community for education/info? Or am I just being overly paranoid?

[ostell]

Re: Pay within 10 min PCN PPS IAS

Share online but make sure that the driver is not identified and all documents redacted.

Just ignore, or ask stir a bit and ask where that condition was on their sign. Then just ignore unless it gets to a letter before claim.

If they did continue then this would be a good case for counter claiming for a breach of the DPA for using your personal data without reasonable cause. £500 anyone?

Make sure you keep everything, especially that letter that says that they know that the driver paid for the time.

[charitynjw]

Re: Pay within 10 min PCN PPS IAS

they advised to create a case with IAS (it says independent in the name, so muse be fair right? ), and the case got dismissed after several weeks.

Could you clarify this bit?

[jadm]

Re: Pay within 10 min PCN PPS IAS

In essence, the appeal submitted was dismissed - in IAS's words. Though they made no mention of inconsistent signage, errors in operators documentation, the fact the operator slipped in material from another site, or simply and most importantly the absence of that condition in the first place. Strikes me as a kangaroo court...

The Operator’s signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver’s reasons for being on site. It is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the terms by not ensuring that a payment was made within a reasonable time after entry to the car park.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

[jadm]

Re: Pay within 10 min PCN PPS IAS

It's addressed to me and dated 7th November 2017. It then starts

Re IAS Appeal Decision PCN xxxxxx VRMxxxxxxx

As you will be aware, your appeal in relation to the above has been refused by the independent appeal service. You were allowed 14 days from the date of the adjudication to pay the outstanding original parking charge notice amount in full. The 14 days have now lapsed and we have yet to receive payment. We will now begin county court action against you unless payment is received within 5 days of the date of this letter. We will use the independent appeal service's adjudication in support of our county court action.

Payment can be made by calling the above number during office hours or by visiting the website pps.uk.com and clicking pay online. We reserve the right to continue county court action at any time if payment is not made within the deadline outlined in this letter.


Just as an aside, bumped into this thread http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73399606. This is not me but they have received the exact same letter on the same day.

They formatted a response, over on MSE, would you guys agree with their response?
Finally it states you have 5 (working?) days, starting from 7th is it worth replying, as I dont bother with jerks on the weekend I could discount the 2 weekend days, which gives me until midnight today? btw, they sent it to my old address, hence only saw it 3 days ago.

[charitynjw]

Re: Pay within 10 min PCN PPS IAS

Yep, that MSE letter is pretty well spot on.

It certainly puts them on notice that they have failed miserably re the new PAP.

Tweak it to suit....the only addition I would add is to highlight that you are responding as registered keeper.
You could also add that they have also failed due diligence by sending stuff to a previous address (if appropriate)

As for IAS being a kangaroo court.....

Boiiiiing!!

[jadm]

Re: Pay within 10 min PCN PPS IAS

Cheers charitynjw, and legal beagles for your time and thought so far.
Sent - doubt its the end of it though.
I assume the next step is they come back with an actual LBC?

[jadm]

Good evening all - its been a while...*
3 years later and after several letters form debt collectors (DPK) I've now received an LBC from BW Legal.
Would love your thoughts on their letter and my response and anything you seasoned folks would additionally consider.
Also, I have struggled to find out which court it would go to, would it be the court in the county the 'breach' occurred in, i.e. the carpark the contravention occurred?
Attached their letter, and my response below.







Dear BW Legal,

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Action of 10th January 2020.
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your case places reliance upon.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide. You must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

As you must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm such as yourselves are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including yourself, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

I require you to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
2. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
3. What the details of the claim are; in particular which specific clause(s) have been breached, how long was the vehicle at site, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
4. Provide me 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 “establishing yourself as the creditor”
5. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
6. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
7. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until you at BW Legal have complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.


Many many thanks all
*