Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Unfortunately because Proserve isn't a member of the BPA, you can't appeal to POPLA. It is a con, but from what I can see on other forums, it's a very litigious con, with dubious arguments that should readily be refuted in court.

All the more reason, then, to report those buggers to Trading Standards.

[CAPS ESC]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Like P1, I never revealed drivers name and got my defence arguments sorted should it have escalated. it never got passed the threat letters.
Just noticed a lack of time and date stamp on those photos, it is possible that the originals do have that information but if so why remove it?
Also have you photographed any signage and noted its location.

[joshing]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Whilst you may have committed various offences contrary to one or other of the Road Traffic Acts, such as parking on a double yellow line and obstruction of part of the pavement, this tom-fool "Charge Notice" letter make no reference whatever to such infringements but, instead, blathers on about an alleged breach of contract and an allegedly unauthorised trespass. This is odd, as double yellow lines have no effect whatever on private land - they only apply to the public highway and, even then, must be authorised by a parking restrictions order.

The vehicle seems to have been parked on the public highway - could you confirm that this was so?

If it was on the public highway, their claims fall to the ground at once and may even constitute an attempted fraud by misrepresentation.

Even if the vehicle have been parked on private land, their claim for £150 damages for "breach of contract" and/or "unauthorised trespass" (sic) seems confused and arbitrary. Putting them to strict proof of those alleged damages might be fun, as the landowner seems not to have suffered any loss whatsoever, whilst it might also be fun to ask who their lawyer is, if only to ask him/her about the tautology of "unauthorised trespass" and in which edition of the Perry Mason Annual they read such nonsense. Trespass is inherently unauthorised...

The letter makes no reference whatever to the law, or to the right of appeal to POPLA; for that reason alone, I believe that POPLA should allow an appeal to succeed. Of course, that would only apply if the alleged infringement happened on private land - if it was on the highway, those chancers have no right at all to any money.

Concisely, it looks like an attempted con trick and should be reported to Trading Standards ---> link

This is private land we think as the signs are everywhere, local people have been caught out as iv been reading up, I only have 14 days to appeal, it seems they leave it a long while to send the letters out for various reasons. They are registered balliffs and people have had them knocking on their doors not knowing they had been to court.

[joshing]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

[QUOTE=CAPS ESC;437284]Like P1, I never revealed drivers name and got my defence arguments sorted should it have escalated. it never got passed the threat letters.
Just noticed a lack of time and date stamp on those photos, it is possible that the originals do have that information but if so why remove it?
Also have you photographed any signage and noted its location.[

There's a sign on the photo and we think more around the whole place, going to look today but with disabled badges you would have thought we would have been ok.

[joshing]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

The best forum is http://www.pepipoo.com as they concentrate on motoring law.

Just found this quote....................

"John Chaplin from Suffolk Trading Standards, looks like they have investigated Proserve and they are acting lawfully, TS, DVLA, ICO, Courts all think PES are acting lawfully what now."

[colonelsensibl]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Just got a couple of quotes off PePiPoo. 1) is a suggested response; 2) refers to an appeal that ProServe are making, that goes to court on the 24/10/14.

1) "Be extremely careful with this outfit, they do take people to court and are extremely litigious. As emanresu explained, their whole business model is a sham contract between Proserve and Ransomes where Proserve invoices Ransomes, and Ransomes then takes the motorist to court over this.
There is no value in "appealing" as this will lead nowhere. I would simply send them the following letter and get a proof of posting when dropping off at any Post Office:

"Dear Sir or Madam,
I am in receipt of your speculative invoice and can confirm that I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question, on the date of the (alleged) parking event.
I am fully aware that you are claiming Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 without adhering to its strict requirements.
I am also fully aware of your current court claims and appeals and your pending investigation by the DVLA.
Take notice that I will defend any claim you may bring against me as the Registered Keeper, because your allegations are wholly unfounded. You need to contact the driver instead.
Further communications will not be entered into.

Yours faithfully,
XYZ
Registered Keeper"

But be aware that they may take you to court over this.
I think we need to await the appeal decision, it would be good to get an update on this."

2) "The business model that Proserve operate to is that there is no appeal procedure available. They send the charge notice, hang around for ages and then out of the blue the court claim papers drop through the letter box.
Now that your appeal has been posted on here Proserve know what your position is so no point in spending money on postage now.
If that charge notice was sent more than 14 days after the parking event then send the Charge Notice to Mr Toft at the DVLA DSP@dvla.gsi.gov.uk and complain that Proserve appears to be seeking to enforce keeper liability under POFA and that

1. on the 31st August 2014 Mr Toft said "We have made it clear that, should we become aware of any company seeking to pursue claims under PoFA’s provisions where these do not apply, no more data will be made available to the company in relation to those particular car parks until the situation is remedied."
2. on the 6th March 2014 Kevin Watts said "Companies such as Proserve receive vehicle keeper information on the condition that it will only be used to identify a driver following an alleged contravention on private land. It cannot be further processed for any other purpose. " So they can only sue the driver

Then ask that Proserve be banned from receiving any data, in accordance with these assurances given to the public.
The appeal talked about on here is due to be heard on the 24th October 2014. The court has stayed all actions pending the outcome of that appeal such that I anticipoate that all potential new actions may also have to be held back.
Incidentally someone took Proserve to court today and won. Not sure of the details though."

[joshing]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Why is everything so complicated, it says i can appeal so do i or not? I dont think they realised we had disabled badges up or are they complaining we parked on the path.

[colonelsensibl]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

You can appeal, using words like those in Post #21. It is unlikely that ProServe will accept your appeal. They want your money. However the appeal will start a paper trail that you may be able to help build your case if they take you to court. There is no point in pleading mitigating circumstances - blue badge displayed, etc.. Proserve and/or the court will ignore these and concentrate on the legal aspects.

Whether you appeal or not is moot. What you should do however is wait to see the outcome of ProServe's appeal against a court case they lost. This takes place on 24/10/14. If ProServe lose this appeal there will be lots of advice on how to beat them if they take you to court.

[joshing]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am in receipt of your speculative invoice and can confirm that I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question, on the date of the (alleged) parking event.
I am fully aware that you are claiming Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 without adhering to its strict requirements.
I am also fully aware of your current court claims and appeals and your pending investigation by the DVLA.
Take notice that I will defend any claim you may bring against me as the Registered Keeper, (albeit a mobility vehicle) because your allegations are wholly unfounded. Blue disabled badges were displayed and because of the situation of where the disabled ramp is, the car was parked so as to make it more assessable for the disabled person to be able to access screwfix.
There was no evidence of any damage or losses and I would like to see how a judge would deem £150 to be fair.
Please acknowledge this fact and withdraw this invoice.

[joshing]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

What do you think?

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am in receipt of your speculative invoice and can confirm that I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question, on the date of the (alleged) parking event.
I am fully aware that you are claiming Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 without adhering to its strict requirements.
I am also fully aware of your current court claims and appeals and your pending investigation by the DVLA.
Take notice that I will defend any claim you may bring against me as the Registered Keeper, (albeit a mobility vehicle) because your allegations are wholly unfounded. Blue disabled badges were displayed and because of the situation of where the disabled ramp is, the car was parked so as to make it more assessable for the disabled person to be able to access screwfix.
There was no evidence of any damage or losses and I would like to see how a judge would deem £150 to be fair.
Please acknowledge this fact and withdraw this invoice.

[colonelsensibl]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

It's a good letter. Have you sent it yet? If not, I'd send it recorded. Don't be too surprised if it's ignored or rejected. Good luck!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Thanks for your help Colonel & good luck Joshing.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

Just got a couple of quotes off PePiPoo.

1) "Be extremely careful with this outfit, they do take people to court and are extremely litigious. As emanresu explained, their whole business model is a sham contract between Proserve and Ransomes where Proserve invoices Ransomes, and Ransomes then takes the motorist to court over this.

How about getting those simian sods to prove their alleged "damages" in court?

That's how those other parasites, RLP, got unstuck in the Oxford case - their client claimed the usual sum in alleged damages but, when the claim was subjected to strict proof, it was shewn to be fallacious and without merit.

Would it be possible to give a link to the thread(s) on Peepeepoo, as the relationship between Proserve and Ramsomes does not seem quite clear. If Ransomes is the land owner, their losses would more easily be mitigated by ceasing to use the somewhat dubious services of Proserve.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

It is unlikely that ProServe will accept your appeal. They are evil parasites and only want your money.

I've fixed your post for you.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Oh Shi******** private enforcement parking ticket.

the car was parked so as to make it more assessable for the disabled person to be able to access screwfix.

Also refer this matter to ScrewFux, as they may not see any merit in keeping customers away