Parking Eye ANPR LOC Now claimform - Teanlowe - Booths Poulton Le Fylde

[Robert63]

The saga continues, About a week ago my received a final demand from DCBL which we duly ignored, then on Saturday we get a claim form through the post.

 

Final a.pdf Claim a.pdf

 

I've just read over the Final notice and The claim form again and it seems that my wife has received 2 invoices from parking eyes for the same place but 2 different times., and the claim form is for the second time. I'll have to go over everything again once I get home tonight. 

[dx100uk]

 

please complete the above

 

dx

 

[Robert63]

Name of the Claimant :Parking Eye

 

Claimants Solicitors: none

 

Date of issue – 23/01/23

 

Date for AOS -10/02/23

 

Date to submit Defence - 24/02/23

 

What is the claim for – 

 

1. Claim for monies outstanding from the defendant in relation to a Parking Charge (ref number abcdefgh/ijklmon) issued on 30/09/22.

 

2. The signage clearly displayed throughout Teanlowe - Booths Poulton-le Fylde, FY6 7DF states that this is private land, managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and that it is subject to terms and conditions, including max stay period, by which it it agree to be bound ( The contract).

 

3. ParkingEye's ANPR system captured vehicle aaooaaa entering and leaving the site on 26/09/2022, and overstaying the max stay period.

 

4. Pursuant to Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, notice has been given to the registered keeper, making them liable for the Parking Charge payable upon breech

 

What is the value of the claim?

 

Amount Claimed £100.00

court fees             £35.00

legal rep fees       £50.00

Total Amount       £185.00

 

 

 

 

Claim a..pdf

[dx100uk]

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform

.

register as an individual on the Gov't Gateway Site
Go to HMRC's login page.

Click the GREEN sign in button.
Click “Create sign in details”
Enter your email address where asked.
You will now be emailed a confirmation code. ...

You will now be issued with a User ID for your government gateway account.
 note down your details inc the long gateway number given, you might need it later.
 

then log in to the MCOL Website

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim

type your name ONLY

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

………….
 

[FTMDave]

Rereading your thread from the start, all the correspondence refers to an invoice issued on 31.07.2021.

 

The all of a sudden there is this claim form for 26.09.2022.  Unless PE have got mixed up, it seems a completely different invoice.  Did they send you any letters for this 26.09.2022 charge before the claim form?

[Robert63]

I'm not sure what letters my wife has received, I'll check tonight once I get home.

[lookinforinfo]

Strange also that they have gone for the more recent of the two PCNs if indeed there are two.

[Robert63]

Well it looks like my wife has gotten 2 PCN's for the same place, she just ignored the letter's for the second one ( like I'd told her to do ).

 

• 
   

1 Date of the infringement
28/09/2022
 
 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]
03/11/2022
 
3 Date received
unsure
 
4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]
yes
 
5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?
no
 
6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]
No
 
Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up
n/a
 
7 Who is the parking company?
Parking Eye
 
8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]
Teanlowe – Booths, Poulton Le Fylde
 
For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.
BPA

 

And then the reminder. 

 

RE-PCN 13-51 26-9-22 - 2022-11-03 PE 29 days passed keeper liability now + 2022-09-30 PCN Reminder.pdf

[Robert63]

My wife has just received Parking Charge Notice from those lovely people at Parking Eye.

The car park is a free to use car park with a 3 hour limit. She managed to stay for 3 hours and 11 minutes.

 

1 Date of the infringement
31/07/2021
 
 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]
04/08/2021
 
3 Date received
09/08/2021
 
4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]
Yes
 
5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?
Yes
 
6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]
No
 
Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up
N/A
 
7 Who is the parking company?
Parking Eye
 
8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]
Teanlowe – Booths, Poulton Le Fylde
 
For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.
BPA
 

 

Parking eye 001.pdf

[FTMDave]

New thread created for this new case.

 

It's not a good idea to ignore a Letter of Claim.  In the fleecers' minds: ignoring a Letter of Claim = may well ignore a claimform = easy default win for them.

 

Are you sure about?

 

1 Date of the infringement
28/09/2022
 
 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]
03/11/2022

 

Shouldn't it be?

 

1 Date of the infringement
26/09/2022
 
 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]
30/09/2022

[Robert63]

FTMDave I'll do a double check on the paperwork once I get home, in case I've messed it up.

[lookinforinfo]

Robert the PCNs we need to see are not the reminders but the first PCNs your wife received often referred to as the Notice to Keeper. The one good thing about PE is when they are not using the dodgier solicitors they only charge the actual amount of £100 rather than adding fictitious and unlawful amounts to the charge.

 

[brassnecked]

Yes if there are two seperate PCN potentially 2 claims put each on e on the correct thread, so they are not mixed up.

[Robert63]

Here we go again guys but with the proper information. ( My fault sorry ).

 

 

1 Date of the infringement 26/09/22

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date 30/09/22
 
3 Date received unsure
 
4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] yes
 
5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes
 
6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No
 
Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up n/a
 
7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye
 
8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Teanlowe – Booths, Poulton Le Fylde
 
For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. BPA

 

 

Second letter dated 09/10/22

Third letter dated 03/11/22

Then Letter before claim dated 18/11/22

 

20220-11-18 PE Letter Of Claim.pdf 2022-09-30 PE PCN 26-06-2022.pdf

[brassnecked]

They seem to have learned they cannot add anything to the original Invoice if chasing keeper at least.

[FTMDave]

True BN.  But where have the £50 legal representative's costs come from?  They're representing themselves!

 

Robert, you know the drill from your other thread.  It was a bad mistake to ignore a Letter of Claim.

 

Also, while an 11-minute "overstay" is easy to bat off, 37 minutes will be trickier.  What caused her to stay there so long?

 

Anyway, the important thing is to defend the damn thing, as per dx's instructions in post 4.

[lookinforinfo]

PE are usually pretty good at getting their PCNs compliant wordwise  with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Act . But there are questionable factors involved that a Judge may or may not agree that they are compliant. 

For instance  they have failed to specify the parking time which is a requirement under the Act.  Yes there are photos showing the arrival and departure times but those are not parking times since the car has not been parked for that length of time since the driver will have to find a place to park [perhaps a disabled bay or mother and child one] then manoeuvre the car between the lines to comply with the T&Cs. Then after packing the car with shopping and taking the trolley back driving from the parking spot to the exit all detracts from what P is claiming as the parking period.

The good news is that you have not appealed so PE do not know who was driving. I assume that as your wife appears to be getting the PCNs that she is the keeper. If you [or someone else] is the keeper then if the Judge accepts the PCN is not compliant then PE lose in Court  since non compliance means the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.

Even if your wife is the keeper that is not enough to prove she was the driver. You for instance are probably able to drive the car as is anyone else who has a valid motor insurance policy. 

 

We still haven't seen the second PCN original copy since the Reminders do not have the same requirements on them as the original. Could you please post it up front and back as well as the back of the PCN you posted a few hours ago. As i said at the start of the post PE usually get their wording right but now and again they slip up so fingers crossed.

 

 

 

 

[Robert63]

The reminder

 

 

 

2022-09-30 PCN Reminder.pdf

[brassnecked]

Its the back of the Original PCN we need

[Robert63]

Back of original PCN.

0359D00E-6B32-4917-8D49-DC72EB4F7A99.pdf

[Robert63]

And yet another begging letter.

 

 

 

 

I sent Parking Eye a CPR31.14 request 2 weeks ago and this seems to be their reply. This was all the envelope contained. The back was blank. 

 

 

 

2023-02-09 PE recently sent LOC.pdf 2023-02-09 DCBL Final letter of Debt Recovery.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

From their letter it doesn't look as if they regarded your  SAR as a request for your data .Did you use our SAR template. If you did use our one then PE have failed to answer your request.

I would tell them that you are still waiting for them to send your data. Give them two weeks to complete.

[Robert63]

I used the SAR template. I'll write to them again. 

[lookinforinfo]

If it were me I would be complaining to the ICO about DCBL. 

 

They are acting as a shoddy debt collector in this instance and this letter is designed to put the fear of God into those who are unaware that the debt collection arm of their  business has less power than a dead cat. yet their letter uses the phrase Direct Collection Bailiffs three times. Then they compound in on their Collections  phone number by still mentioning that they are a bailiff company rather than the scummy debt collectors that they are. 

 

It cannot be right that they can masquerade as bailiffs when they are not acting as bailiffs. They should have a phone number that states they are debt collectors with no mention of their bailiff section at all. 

 

Draw their to the new Private Parking Code of Practice Annexe E3  Wording used by debt recovery agents (DRAs)

"

The principle of engaging a DRA where the creditor and their customer are unable to achieve a satisfactory conclusion, especially when standard appeals/arbitration protocols have been exhausted, is established, but must be on the basis that the DRA’s role is to strive to come to an arrangement (debt resolution) not simply enforcement (debt recovery). While a minority of cases might still need to be settled at Court it is important that in making the customer (driver/keeper) aware of the implications of non-payment (including, should the Court find against them, the risk to their credit rating.

DRAs must not use terms which would mislead the average consumer or make them reach a decision that they might not otherwise have made – such terms include the list in E.2 and the following:

• summons
• justice
• prosecution
• excessive use of “County Court judgement” (CCJ)
• calling round
• earnings attachment or
• bankruptcy.

Nor should DRAs use terms that:

• imply that they are writing from a legal or litigation department or team
• imply that they have a formal role in adjudication
• refer to pre-action protocol at a point when they are not yet using it
• threaten an in-person visit
• misrepresent whether the timing for appeal has expired"

First even here they do not even include the word bailiff since it would be  so wrong to use it as a DRA

Second they are implying that they are writing from a legal or litigation team

[lookinforinfo]

You could remind them not to use the teaboy to reply to mail since your request was obviously not an appeal. Give them two further weeks or you will begin proceedings against them for failing to provide the data in time.