I have now received a letter confirming that Hunter Forrest have been instructed by their client not to pursue the matter any further. I have not however heard anything else from UKPC - it looks like they have finally given up. Thank you everybody for your support on this site, when you are being bombarded with letters telling you that you owe money, it can feel lonely andit is tempting just to pay to get rid of them. Reading comments and stories from you all helps. Keep it up and good luck with your own battle.

I received yet another letter yesterday from Hunter Forrest with all the usual ...County Court Judgement...Registry Trust ...court fees...etc and a phone number to ring 01527 571060. I started the converstaion asking about the relationship of Hunter to UKPC and was told UKPC are a client - I questioned the reason for the same address and registered number - I was put on hold for a while then told that Hunter Forrest send out letters with UKPC logo printed on them - this means that the debt collector was sending out letters pretending to be the client. After this I told the person I was speaking to my reference number so I could discuss the case and was told that UKPC had instructed them to send everything back. The letters must have apparently crossed in the post. I asked Hunter to withdraw their latest threatening letter, to which I was told they would wrote confirming that their client had told them not to proceed. I'm not celebrating yet, bit I am feeling much happier - stick to your guns folks!!

NatMax, UKPC are not a client of Hunter Forrest - they have the same registered address and company number - look at the bottom of the letters that you have received. I'm in the same boat - this week I had a letter from Hunter Forrest thanking me for my communication and telling me to pay up or they may take legal action. I wrote back telling them that I had never communicated with them - only with UKPC. I also said how convenient it must be for Hunter Forrest & UKPC to be at the same address and have the same company registration, and to let me know if the communication they were talking about was the one I sent to UKPC, because if it was then I had no need to repeat my position save to say I would not be paying. I wish they would take me to court so that I can expose them for what they are.

No problem follow the link below for a bit of light reading http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/user_documents/LOADADJ.pdf

The Parking Adjudicator has examined loading with respect to parking enforcement in the decisions reported as Jane Packer Flowers and Others on 19/07/97. It is quite clear from the decision in Jane Packer Flowers and Others that private cars are capable of loading for these purposes and that loading does not have to be of a commercial nature, and that loading includes the period away from the vehicle and that a period of several minutes is not unreasonable. It is also clear for the Parking adjudicators decision in Douglas v Brent (PAS case No. 1960031276) that, since the driver had right to park for the purposes of loading, the burden of proof lies with Transport for London (substitute for your LA) to prove that the driver was not loading .

Up until now I had only replied to them by referring them to my first letter which denied responsibility. I've now sent the following letter. There may be minor inaccuracies and overstatements - credit to legalpete from pepipoo for most of the following. The TV and newspaper bits are true, but the TV company does not normally do this kind of thing an are not sure if it will sell. Sorry about the length of this, but I had to get it off my chest. Dear Sir or Madam: Please read this carefully, because the wrong action following this letter by your company may result a very public court case. I have already had interest from a TV production company, and a local newspaper on following this case. 1. Dispute. I was at my place of work all day on XX/XX/07 and did not drive my car that day. I did not enter XXX XXXX Park. If somebody entered into an agreement with you on that day, then it certainly was not me. I therefore dispute that I owe you anything. Please note the word ”dispute” and say it very clearly to your Debt Recovery Agency, as they (and you) will risk prosecution if they attempt to touch any of my property. 2. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) You have sent me an invoice which purports to be a PCN. A PCN to most people is a Penalty Charge Notice, for which there are provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1991. Also your FINAL REMINDER states “3. As the registered owner / keeper / of the vehicle you are legally liable for the parking charge even if you were not the driver at the time.” I suggest that you ask your legal department to study that statement and comment on its accuracy. I also urge you to study Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, but just incase you do not have a copy to hand I will enlighten you; Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she: (a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation; (b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it; © falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; (d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not. Paragraph (a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise legal) for the purpose of : (1) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or (2) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process. It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment. 3. Breach of Contract If a person parks on your car park they enter into a contract and agree to your terms. If they did something contrary to those terms then they would be in breach of the contract. The common law holds that the remedy for breach of contract is damages. Therefore you would be entitled to damages covering the costs incurred as a result of breaching the contract. In this case there were no costs involved - your attendants job description will I am sure include the issue of invoices, which means his/her salary would have to be paid regardless. Perhaps you would argue that the car was over the line of the bay thus preventing another customer from parking - it would not work however in this case unless their car was triangular and was dropped into position – take another look at your photo. There is no lost revenue in a free car park either. You may now claim expenses in writing the many letters to me, but I think that you will find I did, (in an attempt to save you time and money) very kindly point out your error in my first correspondence. 4. Exorbitant Terms of Contract If there had been a case to answer here then I think that any court would agree that the sum of money you are claiming is totally disproportionate to the alleged offence. I suggest you study the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). 5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract. (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was. (5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.” The full schedules can be found on various government sites. Most notably Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083 You might also want to look at the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. 5. Harassment I see your charge as unlawful, unenforceable and I am not liable. I will not be providing any payment and your continued pursuit of this matter will constitute an offence under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997. I consider the matter closed and am explicitly instructing you not to contact me again for any reason. I shall be passing any further correspondence from you or anybody acting on your behalf to the police as further evidence of harassment.

Bankbustermum Don't you think its strange that the Registered Office for UKPC and the address that you gave me for Hunter Forrest & Co are identical..............

I too have a UKPC invoice which has been referred to Hunter Forrest & Co - but mine is for £115.24. I am the registered keeper, but was not the driver on the date of the alleged offence - I need the moral support of this site and others like it (eg pepipoo) to keep going. I will post a more detailed description of my plight later, but I just wanted to ask today if anybody has an address for Hunter Forrest & Co ? I can find CCSES (who have a remarkably similar telephone number), but Googling just led me to this Consumer Action Group site.