DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30754--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: slapdash
Date: July 23, 2024, 3:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is also the case that PPL isn't a subsidiary of PPE (or vice
versa). It cannot be. The director controls over 75% of the
shares.
The use of "premises" rather than a business name or location is
very common. (Though has clearly caused confusion).
#Post#: 30755--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: b789
Date: July 23, 2024, 3:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Once we know who is going to be the appellant, it could be
worded even more strongly. Assuming the keeper will be
responding as it is in their name that the invoice has been
issued, I would go with the following:
[indent]As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline to identify the
driver. I deny that I owe any debt and challenge the Parking
Charge Notice (PCN) [PCN Number] issued on [Date] at [Location],
in which you allege that the driver is liable to pay a parking
charge to you, Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd, as the creditor.
The signage at the car park clearly states that the creditor is
Walton Wilkins trading as Premier Parking Logistics Ltd, not
Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd. Since Premier Parking
Enforcement Ltd has issued the PCN but is not the named creditor
on the signage, you do not have the legal standing to enforce
this charge.
Therefore, I suggest that the PCN be cancelled immediately. If
Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd believes they have the authority
to act on behalf of Premier Parking Logistics Ltd, I suggest
that they provide evidence of this authority, such as a contract
or agency agreement between the two companies.
Additionally, I require evidence of a contract flowing between
the landowner and either Premier Parking Logistics Ltd or
Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd. Neither company are
stakeholders in the land, and without such a contract, there is
no basis for either company to issue or enforce a PCN on this
property.
I do not wish to engage in a secondary appeal through the
Independent Appeals Service (IAS), as their reputation as a
biased and non-independent body makes it a waste of time for all
parties involved. Any offer of such an appeal will be
disregarded.
Please take careful note, as this appeal will be used in
evidence should this dispute ever reach court. If you refuse to
cancel the PCN, there must be no passing or transfer of my
details to a third-party debt recovery agent (DRA). Instead, you
should issue a claim for the alleged debt in the County Court,
where I will vigorously defend myself and you can expect a
thorough examination by the judge.
Furthermore, any deviation from this requested path, including
involving a third party for debt collection, will be considered
harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and a
breach of GDPR under the Data Protection Act 2018. Such actions
may result in a Part 20 counterclaim against you for any
distress and inconvenience caused by these breaches.[/indent]
#Post#: 30756--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 23, 2024, 3:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As an aside to this, alongside the appeal it might be worth
sending a Subject Access Request
HTML https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/getting-copies-of-your-information-subject-access-request/<br
/>to the DVLA for a record of which companies have accessed
registered keeper data from their database, to see if there are
similar shenanigans going on with the processing of the keeper's
data.
(You'd be wise to attach proof of keeper status [i.e. a copy of
your V5C] to said request - the response should arrive within a
few weeks, and might take most of that time as last time I sent
a SAR to DVLA the response was sent by post)
#Post#: 30777--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: johnboy1967
Date: July 23, 2024, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for this. The driver is the registered keeper
and they are also registered blue badge disabled. I am more than
happy to go with whatever advice you give us. I am writing only
because the driver is not the sort of person who would be able
to fight such abuse. I was so incensed by the way this sign was
worded that I told the driver they must fight it. Whatever you
all suggest we will take it and send it. I am more than willing
to go to court to represent the keeper as I believe many people
will have been scammed by this signage. Thank you all for all of
this help.
#Post#: 30780--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: b789
Date: July 23, 2024, 6:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK. Thank you for the update. I don't think the blue badge issue
will come into this, to be honest. Just for information, was the
bay parked in marked as a bay for blue badge holders?
#Post#: 30782--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 23, 2024, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If it does go to court, your partner will be the defendant. You
can assist, and possibly sit beside to offer quiet advice as a
McKenzie Friend, but they would be required to attend if it went
to a hearing.
#Post#: 30789--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: b789
Date: July 23, 2024, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can even represent them and talk on their behalf as a lay
representative, as is your right. The defendant would have to be
present but you could do all the talking.
In the meantime, as suggested by @DWBM2, send a SAR to the DVLA
using this form:
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62692f63d3bf7f0e7d5b3dc6/make-a-subject-access-request-to-dvla-form-mis1065_270422.pdf
It is fairly straight forward and can easily be done using a PDF
editor. For the following question: "Tell us what specific
information you need about your vehicles" you can put this:
[indent]I am seeking information on which companies have
accessed my registered keeper data from your database.
I would like to receive a detailed record of all entities that
have accessed my registered keeper data, including the dates of
access and the reasons for which my data was requested.
This information is requested to ensure that my personal data is
being processed appropriately and to verify that there are no
improper activities concerning the handling of my
information.[/indent]
The completed form can be emailed as a PDF attachment to:
subjectaccess.requests@dvla.gov.uk
The response will be by post and can take a while to arrive. I
tis not required to progress this case but will be useful
information.
#Post#: 30790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: johnboy1967
Date: July 23, 2024, 6:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The bays were not specifically marked for disabled.
#Post#: 30791--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: johnboy1967
Date: July 23, 2024, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I will contact DVLA today. So which letter should I use to send
appeal. The driver has asked me to say thank you all so much for
all the help you have already provided.
#Post#: 30792--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: b789
Date: July 23, 2024, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's OK. As blue badges were mentioned, I just wanted to
clarify in what context. This fact would be used as possible
mitigation circumstances but is not really relevant to the way
forward being proposed.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page