DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 58784--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge Thorpe and Co solicitors, North
Yorkshire
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 18, 2025, 1:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They'll not be interested in most of that. We can help you draft
something more robust.
In the meantime, have you got any photos showing the layout of
the signage at the site, how prominent it is etc.?
#Post#: 58786--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge Thorpe and Co solicitors, North
Yorkshire
DIR By: b789
Date: February 18, 2025, 2:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The fleet and line managers are incompetent feckwits! Here is
the situation before we even consider the fact that this is a
council vehicle and you were on a job at the time.
There are several significant legal and procedural issues. Here
are the key points regarding the lawfulness and enforceability
of the "parking charge" issued by Thorpe & Co Solicitors:
1. No Accredited Trade Association (ATA) Membership
[indent]• Thorpe & Co is not a member of any Approved Operator
Scheme (AOS) under the British Parking Association (BPA) or
International Parking Community (IPC).
• This means they cannot obtain keeper details from the DVLA for
parking enforcement purposes. If they did obtain data from the
DVLA for this purpose, they likely misrepresented the reason for
their request, which could amount to a Data Protection Act 2018
(DPA) and UK GDPR breach.
• As a solicitor's firm, they might have obtained DVLA data
through an alternative means (e.g., a legitimate legal enquiry
or other indirect source), but this does not authorise them to
pursue a parking charge in the same way as an ATA-approved
private parking operator.[/indent]
2. Unlawful Threats of Legal Costs
[indent]• The letter states: "if proceedings are issued, we will
be looking to you for the Court fees and our legal costs."
• This is misleading. In the Small Claims Track (under CPR
27.14), legal costs are not normally recoverable except in
exceptional circumstances (e.g., unreasonable behaviour). The
threat of legal costs appears designed to intimidate rather than
reflect actual litigation risks.[/indent]
3. Questionable Contract Formation
[indent]• The sign at the location attempts to create a
contractual agreement whereby a person who parks agrees to pay
£200 per day or part thereof.
• However, for a contract to be enforceable:
[indent]• The terms must be clearly displayed and prominent at
the time of parking.
• The £200 charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or
commercially justifiable. Given the Supreme Court decision in
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015], a charge may be enforceable if it
serves a legitimate interest and is not penal in nature.
• The language on the sign suggests trespass rather than a
contractual agreement. If they are alleging trespass, only the
landowner (or someone with proprietary interest) can sue for
actual damages suffered. £200 per day appears arbitrary and
punitive rather than a reasonable estimate of
loss.[/indent][/indent]
4. Trespass Claim Requires Loss
• If Thorpe & Co is arguing trespass rather than a contractual
breach:
[indent]• A trespass claim must be pursued by the landowner, and
damages must reflect actual loss suffered (which would typically
be minimal unless there was genuine obstruction or disruption).
• Damages for trespass would likely be nominal (£1-£20), not a
fixed penalty-style charge of £200 per day.[/indent]
5. Misrepresentation and Breach of the Solicitors Regulation
Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct
• SRA Code of Conduct: As solicitors, they must not engage in
misleading or abusive conduct in their communications. The
language in their letter appears designed to intimidate rather
than accurately reflect the law.
• Possible Misrepresentation of Authority: They suggest that
they have the right to enforce a penalty-style charge, but
private firms cannot issue fines or penalties, only enforceable
contractual charges.
6. Possible Breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair
Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR)
• The letter could constitute an unfair commercial practice by:
[indent]• Misleading the recipient about legal consequences.
• Failing to provide clear and honest information about their
rights.
• Imposing a penalty rather than a genuine contractual
charge.[/indent]
7. £200 Charge Likely Unenforceable
• The amount does not align with other parking charges typically
deemed enforceable in court (e.g., £50–£100 with a discount for
early payment).
• In Beavis, the Supreme Court upheld an £85 charge, but only
because it was part of a properly managed, ATA-approved, and
clearly signposted scheme. Here, Thorpe & Co:
[indent]• Are not part of an ATA.
• Have no independent appeals process.
• Cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to hold the keeper liable.[/indent]
8. Potential for Formal Complaints
• Complaint to the SRA: The firm could be reported for using
their position as solicitors to make misleading legal threats.
• Complaint to the ICO: If they obtained keeper details from the
DVLA without lawful reason, this may be a data protection
breach.
• Complaint to Trading Standards: If the demand constitutes an
unfair trading practice.
This charge is legally dubious on multiple fronts.
Now, let's consider that the vehicle is a council-owned fleet
vehicle and that the PCN is addressed to the council as the
registered keeper—the situation raises further serious legal and
procedural concerns.
1. Wrongly Addressed "PCN" – Keeper Liability Cannot Apply
[indent]• The PCN was issued to the Council (fleet owner), not
the driver.
• Thorpe & Co has no authority under PoFA 2012 to hold the
keeper (Council) liable.
• The Council has no legal obligation to name the driver or pay
the charge.
• Any claim must be against the actual driver, which they have
no legal means of obtaining unless the Council voluntarily
discloses it.[/indent]
2. Late Issuance – Unreasonable Delay
[indent]• The alleged incident occurred in September 2024.
• The "PCN" was only received by the council's fleet manager on
30th January 2025 (over four months later).
• If this were a legitimate PCN under the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 (PoFA), it would be invalid due to excessive delay.
Even in a contractual claim, such a long delay weakens their
case as it could be considered an abuse of process.[/indent]
3.No Contractual Agreement or Consent
[indent]• The driver states they did not see the sign.
• To form a contract, there must be clear and prominent signage,
and the driver must have had an opportunity to accept or reject
the terms.
• The fact that the driver was only there for 6 minutes further
undermines the claim, as they may not have had sufficient time
to locate and read any signage.
• The £200 charge appears penal and disproportionate for such a
short stay.[/indent]
4. Potentially Unlawful Access to DVLA Data
[indent]• Since Thorpe & Co is not a member of an ATA (e.g., BPA
or IPC), they are not authorised to request keeper data from the
DVLA for parking enforcement.
• If they obtained the council’s keeper details without lawful
reason, this could amount to a breach of data protection laws
(UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018).
• The Council should formally challenge how Thorpe & Co obtained
the registered keeper's details.[/indent]
5. Council Vehicles on Official Business – Statutory Defence
[indent]• The vehicle was on official council business, dealing
with an incident where no public parking was available.
• Public authorities have statutory rights to use the highway
and access areas when performing essential duties.
• If the council has a parking exemption policy for its fleet
vehicles, they may refuse to pay on this basis.[/indent]
6. Trespass Argument Still Fails
[indent]• If Thorpe & Co is claiming trespass, they can only
claim actual losses (which would be minimal).
• A £200 charge is punitive and would not hold up in court.
• Given the short duration (6 minutes) and the fact that the car
park was not full, there is no measurable loss.[/indent]
7. Misrepresentation and Potential Professional Misconduct
[indent]• As solicitors, Thorpe & Co are held to strict ethical
standards under the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Code
of Conduct.
• The threats of legal costs in Small Claims Court are
misleading, which could be reported to the SRA.[/indent]
This what should have happened if you weren't managed by
feckwits:
1. The Council’s Response to Thorpe & Co
The Council (as the keeper) should respond, not the driver. The
response should:
•Refuse to name the driver, as there is no legal obligation to
do so.
•Challenge how Thorpe & Co obtained the keeper's details and
demand proof that they accessed DVLA records lawfully.
•Reject any liability, stating:
[indent]• The "PCN" is a non-compliant and unenforceable private
demand.
• The charge is punitive and disproportionate.
• The vehicle was on official council business dealing with an
incident.
• The driver was only present for 6 minutes, meaning there was
no opportunity to read and accept any contract.
• No actual loss was suffered by Thorpe & Co.
• Warn them that a complaint will be made to the Solicitors
Regulation Authority (SRA) if they continue with misleading
demands.[/indent]
2. Council Complaint to the DVLA
• The Council should formally complain to the DVLA that Thorpe &
Co may have unlawfully obtained their data for parking
enforcement purposes without being an ATA member.
• If Thorpe & Co misrepresented their request to the DVLA, this
could be a serious data protection breach.
3. Complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)
• The SRA regulates solicitors and has strict rules about
misleading or unethical behaviour.
• The threats of legal costs, the misleading use of trespass
claims, and the questionable data access should be reported.
• If the SRA investigates and finds wrongdoing, Thorpe & Co
could face disciplinary action.
4. Complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
• If the DVLA confirms that Thorpe & Co obtained the keeper’s
details without proper authority, the Council should report a
data protection breach to the ICO.
5. If Threatened with Court Action
• If Thorpe & Co persists in demanding payment, the Council
should formally deny any debt and refuse to engage further.
• If court action is threatened, the Council should demand that
Thorpe & Co provides strict proof of how a contract was formed.
• Given the short duration of parking, unclear signage, and lack
of contract formation, a court would likely dismiss the claim.
The PCN is unenforceable. Thorpe & Co cannot hold the keeper
liable, and their claim of a £200 charge for 6 minutes is
excessive and punitive. The Council should reject the charge
outright and demand proof of how their data was obtained. Thorpe
& Co's conduct raises serious concerns about data protection,
misleading legal threats, and professional misconduct, which
should be escalated to the SRA, DVLA, and ICO.
However, given that you have now been left to deal with this,
there are a few potential ways forward. Let’s break it down into
what you can do now, how to push it back onto the council, and
what to do if you must respond directly.
1. Try to Get the Council to Take Responsibility Again
a) Are you a Trade Union Member?
• If you are a member of a union (e.g., Unison, GMB, Unite), you
should immediately contact your local rep and explain the
situation.
• The union can argue that:
[indent]• This is a work-related matter and the driver should
not personally be dealing with it.
• The council (as the vehicle keeper) received the notice and
should handle it.
• The fleet manager is failing in their duty by offloading it
onto an employee.[/indent]
• Possible outcome: The union pressures the council to take back
responsibility and handle the dispute on behalf of the driver.
b) If No Trade Union Membership
• You can still formally write to the fleet manager and your own
line manager (with HR copied in, if possible), stating:
[indent]• The PCN is addressed to the Council, not you
personally.
• You are not the vehicle owner, and council policy should
determine how to handle fleet vehicle disputes.
• It is not your responsibility to deal with legal matters
involving a council-owned vehicle.
• If the council wants to name you as the driver, they must do
so formally and in writing.[/indent]
• This creates a paper trail showing that the fleet manager’s
decision was unreasonable.
2. If You Have to Handle it Personally
If you are forced to deal with it, you should:
[indent]a) Ignore it Until You Are Personally Contacted
• Right now, Thorpe & Co has only sent the notice to the
council.
• Unless you personally receive a demand in your name, you have
no legal obligation to respond.
b) Do Not Identify Yourself to Thorpe & Co
• If you contact Thorpe & Co, you must not confirm you were
driving.
• Thorpe & Co has no legal way to force you to confirm that you
were the driver.
• If the council has already handed over your details, Thorpe &
Co may write to you directly—but even then, you can still
challenge it.
c) Challenge the Demand on Multiple Grounds
If you receive a direct demand, you can write back, rejecting
liability on the following bases:
[indent]1. No Contract was Formed
[indent]• The sign was small and not clearly visible.
• You were only there for 6 minutes, not enough time to read or
accept any "contract".
• There was no opportunity to agree to any terms before
leaving.[/indent][/indent]
2. Charge is Punitive and Disproportionate
[indent]• A £200 charge for 6 minutes of parking is excessive
and would likely be unenforceable in court.
• There is no evidence of any actual loss suffered by Thorpe &
Co.[/indent]
3. No Legal Authority to Issue PCNs
[indent]• Thorpe & Co is not an ATA-approved parking operator.
• They cannot access DVLA data for parking enforcement purposes,
which raises serious data protection concerns.[/indent]
4. The Vehicle was on Official Business
[indent]• The vehicle was a council fleet vehicle dealing with
an incident.
• The driver parked legally to avoid obstructing a public road.
• If necessary, the driver can request a written statement from
their manager confirming the reason for the stop.[/indent]
3. What if Thorpe & Co Threatens Court Action?
[indent]•If they issue empty legal threats, you should not be
intimidated.
•If they actually file a claim, you can robustly defend it,
arguing:
[indent]• No contract was formed.
• The charge is excessive and punitive.
• The vehicle was in use for council business.
• Thorpe & Co has no legal authority to issue PCNs.[/indent]
• Given the weakness of their case, it's unlikely they would
pursue a claim, but if they did, the driver has a strong
defence.[/indent]
4. Final Recommendations
[indent]If you are a Union Member
[indent]1. Contact the union rep and push for the council to
take back responsibility.
2. Escalate within the council if necessary.[/indent]
If You Are Not in a Union
[indent]1. Formally refuse responsibility in writing to the
fleet manager.
2. Refuse to engage with Thorpe & Co unless directly contacted.
3. If contacted, reject liability using the arguments
above.[/indent][/indent]
Let me know what you intend to do and I can provide some help
with advice and draft letters etc.
#Post#: 58789--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge Thorpe and Co solicitors, North
Yorkshire
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 18, 2025, 2:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just a quick point on the above - some of the data protection
arguments might work differently with respect to the Council's
data, as that wouldn't fall under the scope of personal data for
the purposes of GDPR. Although if they've accessed it under
false pretences this is an issue.
Whether it was reasonable to pass on your data to the company is
another matter (unless potentially they did so on the basis of
your consent).
The rest is all sound.
#Post#: 58794--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge Thorpe and Co solicitors, North
Yorkshire
DIR By: b789
Date: February 18, 2025, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I can't see the wood for the trees sometimes! :-\
You're absolutely right—since the vehicle is owned by the
Council, its registration details would not be considered
"personal data" under UK GDPR, because they relate to a legal
entity rather than an individual. However, if Thorpe & Co
obtained the keeper data under false pretences, this could still
be an issue under data protection laws and potentially a breach
of the DVLA’s KADOE (Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an
Event) contract.
How the Data Protection Issues Apply Here
1. If Thorpe & Co requested data from the DVLA:
• They are not ATA members, so they have no lawful basis to
request keeper data for private parking enforcement.
• If they falsely represented their reason for obtaining the
data (e.g., claiming it was for legal action when it was
actually for a parking charge), this could breach DVLA policies
and the Data Protection Act 2018.
2. If Thorpe & Co obtained the council’s details from another
source:
• If they used council records improperly or pressured an
internal contact to disclose information, this could violate
internal data handling policies rather than GDPR.
• However, if they later process any named driver’s personal
data improperly, GDPR would apply at that point.
Key Takeaways
• The Council should still formally challenge how Thorpe & Co
obtained the data.
• If the DVLA provided the data, the Council should file a
complaint with the DVLA and ICO.
• If the Council voluntarily disclosed data, the issue becomes
more about internal procedures rather than data protection law.
This is still worth pursuing, but you’re right that the personal
data aspect doesn't apply in the same way to a fleet vehicle. If
it escalates to a claim against an the driver, GDPR could then
come into play regarding their personal details.
#Post#: 58810--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge Thorpe and Co solicitors, North
Yorkshire
DIR By: Gcdm
Date: February 18, 2025, 4:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
>
> In the meantime, have you got any photos showing the layout of
the signage at the site, how prominent it is etc.?
>
--- End Quote ---
I can collect images tomorrow.
Pictures of camera, sign and general shots of the parking area?
#Post#: 58813--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge Thorpe and Co solicitors, North
Yorkshire
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 18, 2025, 5:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Location of the camera isn't of much relevance - overall layout
of the signage, any photos at the entrance(s) to the site.
Images of whereabouts the vehicle was and its relation to nearby
signage. The purpose is to show if the signage was suitably
prominent (its contents can already be challenged, but no harm
in getting as many reasons to poke holes in their case as you
can).
#Post#: 58826--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge Thorpe and Co solicitors, North
Yorkshire
DIR By: Foxy01
Date: February 19, 2025, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is the vehicle stickered up with council logos/details? If so it
may be that nobody contacted DVLA for keeper details. Is the
address on the letter the same as the one on the vehicle
logbook?
#Post#: 58831--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge Thorpe and Co solicitors, North
Yorkshire
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 19, 2025, 3:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The letter from the solicitors says they acquired the details
from DVLA. I think we should proceed on the basis that is true.
If they subsequently state they did not get the details from the
DVLA, then them lying in writing to their local council in a bid
to elicit money is unlikely to be viewed favourably.
#Post#: 58842--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge Thorpe and Co solicitors, North
Yorkshire
DIR By: b789
Date: February 19, 2025, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For now, unless we can confirm that the you have been formally
named as a party by Thorpe & Co, they have no legal standing to
act. All we know so far is:
--- Quote ---
> 'They' (presumably their fleet/line manager) have passed their
details to 'them' (assuming Thorpe & Co) and their address as
they have accepted responsibility for this. "I accept I parked
there for a matter of 5 to 6 mins whilst performing my duties."
--- End Quote ---
The PCN (invoice) would still need to be reissued in your name.
The next steps (before you receive anything) is to confirm
whether Thorpe & Co has actually processed your details.
You should check with your fleet/line manager whether Thorpe &
Co has acknowledged receipt of your details. Just because the
fleet manager says they passed it on doesn’t mean Thorpe & Co
has actually updated their records yet.
Do nothing until there’s direct contact from Thorpe & Co in your
name. There is no point in acting yet if Thorpe & Co hasn’t
reached out. If they don’t send anything, you don't need to
chase it.
Since you are already collecting evidence of signage, you should
continue without alerting Thorpe & Co.
Keep the Union in the Loop (if applicable). If you are a union
member, you should inform them now before any official demand
arrives. If the union gets involved early, they might help push
it back onto the Council.
That’s it for now—no need to act until Thorpe & Co actually
contacts you directly.
Feel free to direct your fleet/line managers to this thread or
use the information in it to point out their failures in getting
this PCN cancelled in the first place because it was not
enforceable in the first place.
#Post#: 58871--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking charge Thorpe and Co solicitors, North
Yorkshire
DIR By: Gcdm
Date: February 19, 2025, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Pictures of the location.
First looking back at the car park
Second close-up of camera and sign.
Third view of car park when you arrive on one way back street
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page