DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 53359--------------------------------------------------
VICTORY in court against Napier Parking Limited. Now what?
DIR By: Telecaster
Date: January 14, 2025, 3:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver was taken to court by Napier Parking Limited over 2
PCNs at one of their car parks. The details of the PCNs do not
matter as the case was dismissed by the judge. The reason for
this was that their Landowner agreement was flawed. They had an
initial lease of just over 6 months and a rolling management
agreement. However, nothing in the agreement stated that the
lease would renew, so Napier had no right to levy parking
charges on the land.
The driver now wishes to know:
- Can they claim back expenses for the original court date? This
was not done at the time. Will this need to be a new claim
against Napier?
- As Napier had no right to levy parking charges on the land,
the driver paid twice for the parking in one of the PCNs but has
claimed none of that back. The driver actually paid £570 over 2
years for parking sessions on that site. Can they take Napier to
court to get all of it back?
- Napier have obtained and processed the driver's personal data
in breach of GDPR. They have then used that information to
harass the keeper and driver (following appeal) for nearly 3
years. Can anything be done about this?
- Several other people have claimed about this car park.
Potential class action?
It's nice to hear of a victory, but there are unseen costs such
as stress and anxiety and it would be brilliant to see them
played at their own game.
Thanks in advance! :)
#Post#: 53418--------------------------------------------------
Re: VICTORY in court against Napier Parking Limited. Now what?
DIR By: b789
Date: January 15, 2025, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To answer your questions...
1. Can the driver claim back expenses from the original court
date?
Since the court case was dismissed, the defendant would have
needed to request costs at the hearing. If they did not make
this application at the time, they cannot now reopen the case to
seek costs retrospectively.
However, there is another route:
[indent]New claim for damages
The defendant can make a new small claim against Napier Parking
for expenses incurred defending an unwarranted claim. This would
be based on tort of abuse of process or negligence, arguing that
Napier pursued a claim without any legal right to do so, causing
financial loss (e.g., travel, missed work, etc.).
This claim could be bolstered by CPR 27.14(2)(g), which allows
costs to be awarded for unreasonable behaviour. The argument
would be that pursuing claims without a valid landowner
agreement is unreasonable and amounts to a misuse of the court
process.[/indent]
2. Can the driver claim back parking fees paid to Napier?
Yes, the defendant has a strong basis to claim a refund of all
parking fees paid to Napier, on the grounds that Napier had no
legal right to charge for parking at the site. Since the
landowner agreement was flawed, Napier was acting ultra vires
(beyond their powers).
Legal basis for a refund claim:
[indent]• Unjust enrichment – Napier received money that they
were not entitled to collect.
• Restitution – The driver can demand that Napier return the
fees paid due to a lack of contractual authority.
• Breach of consumer protection laws – The driver could argue
that Napier’s actions were unfair or deceptive under consumer
protection laws, further strengthening the case for
restitution.[/indent]
The defendant should issue a Letter Before Action (LBA)
demanding the refund of parking fees paid to Napier. If Napier
refuses, the defendant can file a small claim in court to
recover those fees.
3. GDPR claim for misuse of personal data
Napier’s actions could constitute a breach of the UK GDPR. They
obtained and processed the Keepers’s personal data (vehicle
registration, address, etc.) without a valid legal basis, since
they had no right to manage the land and thus no lawful basis
for issuing PCNs.
The Keeper can pursue a data breach claim on the following
grounds:
[indent]• Unlawful data processing – Napier had no lawful basis
under Article 6 of the UK GDPR.
• Distress – The driver can claim for the distress caused by
receiving unwarranted demands, threatening letters, and the
stress of defending a court case.[/indent]
• File a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office
(ICO).
• Send Napier a Letter Before Action (LBA) demanding
compensation for the GDPR breach.
If Napier refuses, escalate the matter to a county court claim.
GDPR compensation claims for distress typically range from £500
to £2,000, depending on the severity of the breach and the
impact on the claimant.
4. Can this become a class action?
A group litigation order (GLO) or class action could be pursued
if there are multiple affected individuals who paid parking
charges or received PCNs from Napier at the same site.
You'd have to contact other victims through online forums to see
how many others have been affected. If there is significant
interest, the group could instruct a solicitor specialising in
group litigation to pursue Napier on behalf of multiple
claimants.
A class action would make sense if there are many victims and
significant financial sums involved. Otherwise, it may be more
practical for individuals to pursue their own claims via the
small claims track.
#Post#: 53487--------------------------------------------------
Re: VICTORY in court against Napier Parking Limited. Now what?
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 15, 2025, 10:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> 2. Can the driver claim back parking fees paid to Napier?
--- End Quote ---
Is it definitely the case that parking tariffs were collected
and then retained by Napier?
I ask as it's sometimes the case in paid car parks for the
parking operator to deal with enforcement and issuing PCNs etc,
but for the landowner to retain any money paid for 'legitimate'
parking.
#Post#: 53557--------------------------------------------------
Re: VICTORY in court against Napier Parking Limited. Now what?
DIR By: Telecaster
Date: January 15, 2025, 6:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, both. That sounds positive, then!
Would it be worth putting through the damages as a separate
small claim to the other one or lumping them into one claim?
Ideally, I would like a solicitor to run over the landowner
agreement, but I am confident that the judge understood it and
was correct. Indeed, the section referred to does not read very
well.
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> [quote] 2. Can the driver claim back parking fees paid to
Napier?
--- End Quote ---
Is it definitely the case that parking tariffs were collected
and then retained by Napier?
I ask as it's sometimes the case in paid car parks for the
parking operator to deal with enforcement and issuing PCNs etc,
but for the landowner to retain any money paid for 'legitimate'
parking.
[/quote]
I've just stayed up reading the whole thing. There are
definitions of the terms 'Enforcement Revenue' and 'Car Parking
Revenue', but there are no mentions of them in the agreement. It
does seem I have the complete article, as it has all of the
pages referenced in its Contents page. There is reference to the
Tenant paying rent to the Landlord.
#Post#: 53566--------------------------------------------------
Re: VICTORY in court against Napier Parking Limited. Now what?
DIR By: b789
Date: January 16, 2025, 1:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you believe that your GDPR was breached, then read on:
Article 5(1)(d) of the UK GDPR requires data controllers to
ensure that personal data is accurate and, where necessary, kept
up to date. If a data controller, such as a private parking
company, unlawfully obtains a vehicle keeper's data from the
DVLA and processes it inaccurately—such as issuing an invoice
based on incorrect information about a breach of an alleged
contract with the landowner (or their agent)—this would
constitute a breach of the UK GDPR. Such processing would be
both inaccurate and unlawful under Article 5(1)(d).
Precedents for claiming damages for unlawful data processing are
found in cases such as Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd
[2013] EWCA Civ 333, where the court awarded compensation for
distress caused by inaccurate personal data processing under the
Data Protection Act 1998. Although this case pre-dates the UK
GDPR, its principles remain applicable under the updated UK GDPR
and Data Protection Act 2018. Under Article 82 of the UK GDPR
and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018, individuals
have the right to compensation for both material and
non-material damage resulting from a breach of data protection
laws.
The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311
confirmed that claimants could recover compensation for distress
alone under the Data Protection Act 1998. This principle is now
explicitly recognised under the UK GDPR, meaning that
individuals can claim compensation even if they have not
suffered financial loss, as long as distress is demonstrable.
Furthermore, the case of Tetragon Financial Group Limited v
Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2020] UKUT 0305 (TCC)
underlines the importance of accurate data handling by public
bodies. This principle applies to the DVLA, a public body, which
has a responsibility to ensure that the data it shares with
third parties—such as private parking companies—is used lawfully
and accurately. If a private parking company unlawfully obtained
and inaccurately processed your data, you may have grounds to
seek compensation.
To seek compensation for the unlawful processing of your
personal data, you should provide a pre-action notice to the
data controller (the private parking company). While the
standard pre-action protocol typically allows 14 days' notice,
providing 21 days demonstrates goodwill. Your letter should
clearly state your intention to claim damages of £300 for
distress under Article 82 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the
Data Protection Act 2018. Mark this letter as a ‘Letter Before
County Court Proceedings’.
If the data controller does not comply, you can file your claim
as a litigant-in-person under Part 27 proceedings in the County
Court, commonly referred to as the Small Claims Court. Each
party is generally responsible for their own legal costs,
regardless of the outcome. The claim can be submitted online
through the Money Claim Online service (moneyclaimonline.gov.uk)
for a filing fee of £35. If successful, you may recover your
court fees, bringing the total claim to £335.
#Post#: 54395--------------------------------------------------
Re: VICTORY in court against Napier Parking Limited. Now what?
DIR By: Telecaster
Date: January 21, 2025, 3:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you! I think it's safe to say my GDPR was breached, given
the fact that they have obtained my details without good reason
to do so.
In terms of all of this, it seems I will need to do a few
things:
- Letter Before Action for the claim for damages (court expenses
for the original case)
- Separate Letter Before Action for the claim retrieving all
money paid to Napier for parking on that site
- A further 'pre-action notice' to Napier over the GDPR claim
Does this sound right? Would I be able to combine these into one
letter, or is it better to keep them separate?
#Post#: 54438--------------------------------------------------
Re: VICTORY in court against Napier Parking Limited. Now what?
DIR By: b789
Date: January 21, 2025, 8:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As the claims are closely connected (e.g., all arising from your
interactions with Napier at the same site), a single LoC is
preferable. Include a settlement clause offering to resolve all
issues with one payment. However, if the claims are
significantly different in nature, issuing separate letters may
maintain clarity and focus.
The single claim approach has the following benefits:
[indent]• Efficiency: Saves time and reduces administrative
duplication.
• Clarity for the Defendant: Ensures the defendant has full
visibility of all claims they are facing.
• Judicial Economy: If it proceeds to court, combining related
claims into one action may avoid duplication of
proceedings.[/indent]
While combining the claims is efficient, it does come with some
risks:
[indent]• Overloading the Defendant: If the letter becomes too
long or complex, the defendant may claim it is unclear or
difficult to respond to.
• Different Outcomes: If one claim is significantly stronger
than others, bundling them may affect negotiation leverage or
court perception.[/indent]
If the claims are closely related (e.g., stemming from the same
incident or series of actions), combining is likely the best
course. However, if the claims are quite distinct, separate
letters might better maintain clarity and focus.
#Post#: 54445--------------------------------------------------
Re: VICTORY in court against Napier Parking Limited. Now what?
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 22, 2025, 2:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, according to your summary - we've yet to see details - the
court ruled that Napier had 'a rolling management agreement',
presumably to manage the site.
However, they did not occupy the land under a lease and for this
reason alone they could not offer parking contracts on their own
behalf and therefore issue parking charges for breaches in their
name.
As already asked, we don't know the details of this management
agreement i.e. we know what they couldn't do - to enforce
parking charges - but not what they could e.g. to take parking
tariffs and retain or pass to the landowner etc.
Without this knowledge, I cannot see how you could begin to
argue to recover your parking tariffs and without knowing
exactly on what basis and whose behalf your personal data was
obtained whether there has been a material breach of GDPR.
However, if you think that your costs in engaging a solicitor
would be outweighed by any financial compensation and, as
already posted, if you think your data was obtained unlawfully
then go ahead, but I suspect that any legal advisor would want
more info than is currently available here.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1