Backdoor CCJ OPS/DCB(L) 2017 Windscreen PCN - got set aside - awaiting hearing date- Outside lines - Vantage point , brighton ***Claim Dismissed***

[lookinforinfo]

I very much doubt that OPS will dare take you to Court having added on an unlawful  £60 to the PCN.

They have been savaged by several Judges in Court claiming the extra charge is an abuse of process and are currently discontinuing all cases just before they go to Court hoping that the pressure on the motorist for a Court hearing  will force a payment  and avoid going to Court.

 

It is a shame that you offered to pay them the reduced amount under cover of "without prejudice" since that would have shown your willingness top pay for something that probably isn't really owed.

 

In the meantime I would write a letter to the SRA complaining about  DCBL adding an unlawful amount when they have had their cases thrown out of Court for adding that £60 or sometimes £70.

OPS were in trouble with Judge Harvey  at Lewes Court back in February for adding that £60.

 

As  it's OPS as opposed to any other car parking crooked company, I would be inclined to write to Judge Harvey asking for his comments.

 

I cannot find the case online but it was reported in this Forum a couple of months ago.

I am sure that one of the Site members will be able to find it for you.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Here is the case I talked about on an earlier post-

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ejv0ytejgnu4f57/One Parking Solution v Ms W 5 Feb 2020.pdf?dl=0

just ignore signing in  and read the whole case and then you will understand why OPS shouldn't take you to Court.

And why you shouldn't even think of paying them a penny.

Edited August 15, 2020 by lookinforinfo

[lookinforinfo]

I would have thought that you would have received their WS from the Court case to see what they had claimed in the way of your alleged breach of their Terms and how they arrived at the amount you owed them. If you haven't got them please get on to  OPS . If you have got them please post them here so they can be ripped apart.  At the moment you are going off half cock  and you do need to slow down a bit and get advice before writing to the Court. 

 

On the face of it, you have right on your side but you only have two things in your favour.

One is that you have paid and

two their markings are poor to non existent. 

 

We have not seen your original PCN to see if the NTK complied with PoFA nor do we know if they had planning permission and if they had a valid contract with the Land owner. We do know that the maximum they should charge was the amount on the PCN but we don't know that. Your case would be a lot stronger if we had those facts.

 

As it is there is a chance that you could lose this case because you have not devoted the time necessary to defend yourself. At least you have wiped the CCJ but you do not need to incur another one.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Your defence does need rewriting and improving. It would also help if you could get their  WS which they would have sent to your address before the case that they got you the CCJ. Seeing what they said could improve your chances of confirming that the PCN was unfair and getting your money back for the set aside.

[lookinforinfo]

Rmg2020 I am not sure where you get the idea that OPS sold on your alleged debt to any debt collector or solicitor. Even now it is OPS taking you to Court which they would have unable to do had they sold on the debt. So there is little point in making those points in your WS. 

 

But here are observations of how to argue your case .

 

What you can do is to show up just to show the lack of lines where you parked so as it was unclear that there were lines to be parked within.

 

On not  a single photo of your car are there any lines around your car.

You cannot park within invisible lines .

The only lines that are visible are the joins between the concrete sections and you are perfectly parked within them and it was entirely reasonable to think that they were the lines within which to park..

 

So no offence committed.

On top of that your own photos show the shambles that is their car park and loads of places where the lines had virtually disappeared over time and defies belief that they were prohibited parking areas especially as there was no indication that parking was not allowed there. 

 

[I notice that they do not show areas where the car park has clear lines to park within. If you think that the parts of the car park that they have not shown are not particularly clear, you could put them to strict proof that they can show that they are clear and that the photos are very recent so that cannot show photos of the car park years ago when the lines would have been fresh.]

 

Even the company have accepted that where you parked, the lines were faint so reasonable to assume that they were originally designed to be car parking places. So there is no indication that they are still not currently in use. 

 

The font size on the signage is too small.

You would have thought that OPS would have managed to produce a legible sign-even at 175% magnification their sign on page 17 is mostly illegible as far as their T&Cs are concerned.

 

No evidence of what  sign is showing at the entrance-is it the same sign as on page 17?

Then it cannot be read in a car on entering.

Too many words and font too small.

Or is it just a sign advising motorists that they are entering private land?

 

Either way, the sign cannot offer a contract on entry just an invitation to treat. 

 

The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 s8 [2] [f]. which states :

 

(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;

 

Your PCN includes "assuming the keeper is the driver " and omitting (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)

 

In this section of PoFA the regulations are that the wording must contain the words on PoFA which theirs do not.

That means they cannot pursue you as the keeper and the Court will not allow the assumption that the keeper and the driver are one and the same.

 

Anybody with car insurance can drive your car.

[Please note that if you were the driver you cannot say you weren't but you if asked you can say that you are not required under the Regulations to reveal who was driving.].

 

The contract looks ok other than to say that it has not been properly executed as the position of the signees to the contract have  not been stated in contravention of the Companies Act 2006.

 

The above should strengthen your case against them but please remove  all references to the Law of Property Act.

Edited November 11, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[lookinforinfo]

RMG I don't know if you are keeping abreast of the new CoP and the changes do help your case. One of them isn't even a change it's just confirmation of the  original Act that the amount on the signage was the maximum that could be charged.

 

A Government minister described the additional charges as "a rip off" and in the new CoP which though  the government  accept that some changes may take time to implement those that can be done straight away should be.

 

"We recognise that many of these changes – like bringing private parking charges in line with local authority charges – will take time to implement.

 

The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible. The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation."

 

That was said by Minister Neil O’Brien, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Levelling Up, the Union and Constitution

 

{Despite the same font as above these are my comments.  It was always Parliaments objective that parking charges should be limited to the amount quoted on the signage as confirmed by PoFA Schedule 4 s8[2][d] and s9 [2][d] "as specified in the notice".

It is the greed of the rogue parking operators that have introduced the extra rip off charges that have brought about the new CoP coming in to force. Still OPS are trying to push through their unlawful charges surely confirming that they are one of the rogue companies that the Government are aiming to rein in.

 

They have even gone as far as to confirm in their contract with Periworld right at the start 1a  "OPS will always adhere to all legislation as set out as part of PoFA 2012. They didn't comply with parking charges and they didn't comply with Town and Country [Advertisements] Regulations where they need planning application for their signs and ANPR cameras. 

 

New CoP

9. Escalation of costs

The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.

 

In their WS point 12 they state that the driver accepted the contract by parking. As the entrance signage was not capable of forming a contract [either non existent or too small to be read while driving past -whichever is correct] there was only an invitation to treat so no contract formed.

 

In their WS at point 19 they said two things that were incorrect. There is no obligation on the keeper to reveal who the driver was and the Court will not assume that the driver and the keeper are one and the same. Nor is the lack of indication of the name of the driver an indication that the keeper was the driver. 

 

As you said in your WS they showed a lot of photos of signs but none of them could be pinpointed to anywhere on the car park-they could have been stock photos held by DCBL. I don't think they even marked on their plan where you were parked?

 

The NTK is not PoFA compliant despite Mr Green so averring. Under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 s9 the NTK MUST comply with the wording in that section. It doesn't so not compliant and the liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

 

It's a real dog's breakfast of a WS. No wonder Mr Green only printed his name when it came to the bit about telling the truth which makes the WS inadmissible?

 

Bear these points in mind when it comes to the actual date of the hearing. These are points that you have already brought up in your WS in different ways.

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by dx100uk
formatting

[lookinforinfo]

A little bedtime reading. Please read the preamble as well as the actual changes themselves.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

[lookinforinfo]

Oh I am pleased for you. You've gone from having a  CCJ wiped off your record and now you have won a second time against them. What a relief for you.