DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 117515--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bank Parking - compensation for ticket being issued
incorrectly.
DIR By: Kharas1
Date: May 1, 2026, 8:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just bumping this one as no posts since posting last week
Any thoughts/ideas/views very welcome
#Post#: 117520--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bank Parking - compensation for ticket being issued
incorrectly.
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 1, 2026, 9:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
On your point about the evidence of pre-payment, I would provide
it to them again. I know you have done this already, but not
doing so now opens up the opportunity for Bank to say that they
(for example) lost it, then when they asked for it in advance of
a claim being issued, you refused to provide it, leading to an
otherwise avoidable claim, which wouldn't make you look good.
It isn't the Small Claims Court, it is the small claims track in
the County Court.
Thinking more broadly, the only thing in the back of my mind
reading back over this case is that it looks as though Bank
Parking cancelled the charge upon your first appeal, is that
correct? If so, Bank Parking could seek to paint the issue as a
simple error, which they rectified by cancelling the charge as
soon as the matter was brought to their attention (An obvious
counter here would be that they made another mistake by issuing
a debt collection letter). On that basis, a judge may well want
to know how much "distress" you have suffered, what evidence you
can present to demonstrate this, and how you have arrived at
your claim of £200 for the same. They may wish to be convinced
that this is a genuine claim for distress, and not someone
seeking to use the court system to 'get one back' over a private
parking company.
Looking at the lease company admin fee element - as discussed
further in the thread Bank may argue that the £10 wasn't due in
the first place, and that Lex were wrong to charge it, in which
case that would be a matter between you and Lex.
I'm not saying any of this to try and influence decisions -
whether or not the prospective claimant sues is their decision
to make, I'm just trying to envisage the arguments the other
side will make, so that you can consider how you may counter
them. Remember, as a claimant, you have to prove your case to
the civil standard.
#Post#: 117533--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bank Parking - compensation for ticket being issued
incorrectly.
DIR By: Kharas1
Date: May 1, 2026, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the comments, always appreciated to get another
perspective.
In answer to your point about cancellation of the PCN, I
probably should have set out the full timeline by way of
background so here is what was set out in the letter before
claim
“You obtained my personal data from Lex Autolease Ltd as they
are the Registered Keeper of vehicle registration ………..I am the
hirer of this vehicle. Despite having no reasonable cause you
then processed my data to issue a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)to
me.
The parking session on 2 July 2025 had been pre-booked and
pre-paid for by me in advance of parking at Gould Street, M4
4AP. You therefore never had reasonable cause to process my data
at any stage.
You issued a PCN to me, dated 25 July 2025. I should also point
out that this Notice is not even compliant with Sch 4 PoFA 2012
as it did not enclose any of the hire documents referred to in
the Notice. You therefore could never have transferred liability
to me, as hirer, from the unknown driver.
I then lodged a complaint on 29 July 2025, which the private
parking sector single code of practice says should also be
treated as an appeal. You failed to do so.
Your response was to direct me to use your online appeal process
which was completely unnecessary and both a further waste of my
time together with providing now mounting evidence of your
failure to follow any of the required processes.
On 8 August 2025, despite holding an unresolved complaint/appeal
you then issued a final reminder to me.
On 18 August 2025, as I had no confidence in either your ability
or desire to link the already existing complaint with the
relevant PCN, I did then, in desperation, complete the online
appeal form and try to link it to the previous complaint.
On 3 September 2025, in the continued absence of a response, I
then issued a follow up, via your online contact form, as my
complaint was still unresolved. On the same date you sent a
response that failed to address any of the issues and I replied
to it, again on the same date, reminding you of what had
happened previously.
On 10 September 2025 I received a response from your appeals
department to confirm that the PCN had been cancelled. This is
unequivocal recognition that the PCN should never have been
issued, as to cancel a notice at this early stage is virtually
unheard of within an industry that is based on refusing appeals
regardless of their merit.
On 26 September 2025 you then processed my data again to issue a
Notice of Debt Collection for the previously cancelled PCN.
On 1 October 2025 I issued an email FTAO the Data Protection
Officer at Bank which constituted a valid Subject Access Request
(SAR).
On 17 October 2025 you responded providing further confirmation
that the PCN was issued in error and apologised for any undue
stress caused.
On 20 October 2025 I responded pointing out that this did not
constitute a full reply to the SAR, the deadline for which
expired on 31 October 2025.
Further reminders were issued to you by email on 5 November, 1
December 2025, 5 and 26 January 2026.
To date you have failed to respond to either the SAR of 1
October 2025 or my complaint of 29 July 2025.”
In terms of the admin charge, arguably Lex didn’t do anything
wrong. They received what to them was a valid PCN to which they
responded to transfer liability and then raised the admin charge
allowed for in the contract on the hirer. I’m sure we could push
back to Lex to say that it was subsequently cancelled but I'm
not convinced they are under any obligation to refund the charge
as they did incur the additional admin. As we were looking at a
claim against Bank anyway, we felt it was more appropriate to
seek recovery off them.
I would appreciate any further thoughts on how this impacts your
earlier comments around any potential claim.
#Post#: 118394--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bank Parking - compensation for ticket being issued
incorrectly.
DIR By: Kharas1
Date: May 12, 2026, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> On your point about the evidence of pre-payment, I would
provide it to them again. I know you have done this already, but
not doing so now opens up the opportunity for Bank to say that
they (for example) lost it, then when they asked for it in
advance of a claim being issued, you refused to provide it,
leading to an otherwise avoidable claim, which wouldn't make you
look good.
>
> It isn't the Small Claims Court, it is the small claims track
in the County Court.
>
> Thinking more broadly, the only thing in the back of my mind
reading back over this case is that it looks as though Bank
Parking cancelled the charge upon your first appeal, is that
correct? If so, Bank Parking could seek to paint the issue as a
simple error, which they rectified by cancelling the charge as
soon as the matter was brought to their attention (An obvious
counter here would be that they made another mistake by issuing
a debt collection letter). On that basis, a judge may well want
to know how much "distress" you have suffered, what evidence you
can present to demonstrate this, and how you have arrived at
your claim of £200 for the same. They may wish to be convinced
that this is a genuine claim for distress, and not someone
seeking to use the court system to 'get one back' over a private
parking company.
>
> Looking at the lease company admin fee element - as discussed
further in the thread Bank may argue that the £10 wasn't due in
the first place, and that Lex were wrong to charge it, in which
case that would be a matter between you and Lex.
>
> I'm not saying any of this to try and influence decisions -
whether or not the prospective claimant sues is their decision
to make, I'm just trying to envisage the arguments the other
side will make, so that you can consider how you may counter
them. Remember, as a claimant, you have to prove your case to
the civil standard.
>
--- End Quote ---
I added some further details a few days back and wondered if you
had any further thoughts DWMB2, or indeed anyone else.
#Post#: 118428--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bank Parking - compensation for ticket being issued
incorrectly.
DIR By: tincombe
Date: May 12, 2026, 8:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As I understand matters, the hirer(not you) has not even at this
stage made even a light-hearted attempt to get Lex to refund the
£10. And we don't know the relationship between the hirer and
LEX e.g. long-term lease in its early stages etc.
Did BANK even notify LEX that their PCN had been cancelled i.e.
did they supply the docs mandated under Sch. 4 to relieve
themselves of liability? It would seem that it's not unknown for
lease companies to get this step wrong. So perhaps procedurally
other than for the hirer's efforts they might still be on the
hook??
Perhaps you might consider a completely different approach?
Parking Charge Notice ******
As you know, this was issued to you as registered keeper by BANK
*** claiming that the driver of VRM**** had breached a parking
contract at ******. This vehicle is on (long-term lease or
whatever). Firstly, I must thank you for not paying the charge
of £***, but instead transferring liability to me, albeit with
an admin. charge of £10. Secondly, I must tell you that after
writing to BANK they cancelled the charge because, as I
explained to them, the parking had been paid in advance. I don't
know how their automated systems made this simple error, but
there we go!
So, to finally close this loop the charge was an administrative
error on their part. And while on the subject of administration,
while I accept that £10 won't place me in penury, it is annoying
that I should be charged this when not at any fault, or you for
that matter.
In summary, the charge was a mistake and has been cancelled and
as a gesture of good customer relations would you also consider
cancelling the £10 administration fee?
****
#Post#: 118433--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bank Parking - compensation for ticket being issued
incorrectly.
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 12, 2026, 10:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Exhausting reasonable attempts to get Lex to refund said fee
would also be in the spirit of legal principle that litigants
should seek to mitigate their losses.
#Post#: 118440--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bank Parking - compensation for ticket being issued
incorrectly.
DIR By: Kharas1
Date: May 12, 2026, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks both, I’ll discuss the admin fee issue with my friend to
see where he wants to go.
DWMB2 - I set out more detail of the timetable of events at post
22 to get your further thoughts on the broader compensation
issue that you commented on in post 21 on 1 May.
These more recent developments are all in the context of the
comments made by b789 in the post of 1/11/25.
#Post#: 120115--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bank Parking - compensation for ticket being issued
incorrectly.
DIR By: Kharas1
Date: May 30, 2026, 9:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DWMB2 - I would really appreciate any further thoughts based on
further detail of the timetable of events at post 22 to get your
comments on the broader compensation issue that you commented on
in post 21 on 1 May.
These more recent developments are all in the context of the
comments made by b789 in the post of 1/11/25.
#Post#: 128580--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bank Parking - compensation for ticket being issued
incorrectly.
DIR By: Kharas1
Date: August 23, 2026, 10:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> As I understand matters, the hirer(not you) has not even at
this stage made even a light-hearted attempt to get Lex to
refund the £10. And we don't know the relationship between the
hirer and LEX e.g. long-term lease in its early stages etc.
>
> Did BANK even notify LEX that their PCN had been cancelled
i.e. did they supply the docs mandated under Sch. 4 to relieve
themselves of liability? It would seem that it's not unknown for
lease companies to get this step wrong. So perhaps procedurally
other than for the hirer's efforts they might still be on the
hook??
>
> Perhaps you might consider a completely different approach?
>
> Parking Charge Notice ******
>
> As you know, this was issued to you as registered keeper by
BANK *** claiming that the driver of VRM**** had breached a
parking contract at ******. This vehicle is on (long-term lease
or whatever). Firstly, I must thank you for not paying the
charge of £***, but instead transferring liability to me, albeit
with an admin. charge of £10. Secondly, I must tell you that
after writing to BANK they cancelled the charge because, as I
explained to them, the parking had been paid in advance. I don't
know how their automated systems made this simple error, but
there we go!
>
> So, to finally close this loop the charge was an
administrative error on their part. And while on the subject of
administration, while I accept that £10 won't place me in
penury, it is annoying that I should be charged this when not at
any fault, or you for that matter.
>
> In summary, the charge was a mistake and has been cancelled
and as a gesture of good customer relations would you also
consider cancelling the £10 administration fee?
>
> ****
>
> I’ve liaised with my friend and followed through on this -
we’ve got the £10 refunded from the hire company using your
wording, I’m somewhat surprised but it’s certainly making any
claim via the court much cleaner.
>
> The SAR of 1/10/25 has still not been replied to even after
contact from the ICO who have been told that Bank Parking has
ignored them but decline to do anything further - so about as
much use as the proverbial chocolate fire guard, but I guess
that’s no surprise to any of us. I suspect that what the
response would uncover won’t help Bank’s case so easier to just
not respond.
>
> In the meantime do you have any further thoughts on the
broader claim - timeline set out in post 22 - in terms of is
this a reasonable stance in the circumstances - claim as per our
letter of claim in relation to GDPR issues etc is £250?
>
> Thanks
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page