9 (h) would seem to catch a lot of large companies that use made up names on letters.

your wife (ill advisedly) paid the original invoices, so that matter is closed.

'Recoup' ? I'm not sure this was a question being asked, but even if it was - what do you base that premise on? 6 years to claim a debt perhaps - but this was a novice sent and the service paid for.

 

To later try to say actually you didn't agree with the bill, and didn't really mean to pay it and please can you have your money back, isn't going to cut it. Especially after the event.

Not sure you're getting the gist of this. This is 'not agreeing with the bill' - this is being tricked into paying an intentionally misleading unenforceable invoice.

Of course you can claim back the money in small claims and of course you wouldn't be just saying 'please can I have my money back'. This is contract law - since when have you been allowed to send out invoices for fake amounts and being allowed to keep it if the other party mistakenly pays it???

- but this was a novice sent and the service paid for.

 

Out of interest - what service did the novice supply ?

(1) Afraid making payment IS agreement. To assert otherwise is that it was made under duress or harassment, and this would have to be proved first - and almost impossible to do so.

(2) The Invoice was for services rendered - their argument being the customer agreed to the terms of parking, and when billed for the transgression then paid up. Attempting to roll this back to say there was no agreement invokes side arguments that make such recovery difficult, if not impossible.

Sorry, that's plain incorrect.

1.) We've seen it done for paid PPC invoices.

2.) We've seen it done for paid clamping charges.

3.) We've seen it done for bank charges.

3.) Payment isn't agreement. The original contract cannot be misrepresented by one party in an attempt to coerce payment. The original contract can be examined at a later date by either party.

4.) Their argument is indeed that the customer agreed to the terms of parking, but we all know that is baloney. Unenforceable contract clauses do not suddenly become enforceable by means of payment. Yes, agreement is an aspect of whether the sum is recoverable, but you'd have a difficult job proving payment alone is all that's needed. 'Innocently' incorrect invoices would be enforceable otherwise - an incorrect BT bill for £500 instead of £50 wouldn't become binding if the higher sum was accidently paid.

Very selective.

You've seen 'what' done, exactly? Asking a PCC for payments made to be refunded? And they did?

Ditto for Clamping Companies? Or what you are really saying that for those who raised court action to seek redress/refund, they got their money back?

If so, I do not doubt it, and congratulate those that have done so. However, that wasnt the point being made, you have to (a) go to court, and (b) convince a judge that you have a valid claim. This is not a stroll in the park, and an assured win, as you appear to imply.

Bank Charges - not the same, payment has not been 'made' it has been 'taken', a very different issue.

As to your last point - invoices are never 'binding', especially those that form the basis of an ongoing 'account'. Your BT bill example remains valid with a following credit note to modify the error and correct the situation, which again has no relevance to this discussion.

All my points refer to making an effective claim in court (not out of court), but you're saying that's impossible because you've no redress if you've paid somebody.

Re. bank charges, you've made the payment in advance through the pre-agreed contract. Nothing's being 'taken', you're claiming what you've paid them through contractual terms that have since come to your attention as being unfair (obviously not much chance of that now, but the point remains you could reclaim in small claims).

Re. BT - your point would mean that they didn't have to correct their invoice if they didn't want to because you apparently have no redress if you pay an incorrect invoice because you have somehow accepted the sum. The bill is never 'valid' if it's incorrect. Of course, practically BT would refund/credit you. An ordinary invoice is highly relevant to this conversation because that is all a PPC ticket is.

You have no 'automatic redress' because if you have paid, there is an expectation you agreed to service(es) being supplied and agreed to them. What you outline is a 'change-of-mind' and therefore requires the court to evaluate the transaction on the basis that you accepted the service and now wish to get out of paying for it.

This is a very different scenario as the consumer is the one on the back-foot. Sure, there may be cases that the court will agree, but the mountain must still be climbed. Like chargebacks, this isn't a 'right' but a process of negotiation. Like those that use their CC to pay for clamp removal with the expectation that they'll just get it refunded by complaining to their card issuer is flawed.

Back at BT. I'm surprised you have never come across this before, we're not talking about £50 becoming £500 in error, but lets say you stop a service, but the bill has already been created showing that amount being billed. BT's advice (and indeed any other telco) is to PAY the billed amount, even though it is 'wrong', this is because if you pay what you deem is the correct amount the billing system will see this as an underpayment. (And no doubt whack on additional punitive charges as part of their drive to stiff the consumer). Now, the next bill will have a credit showing, that will bring the original amount billed back to what it should have been... but now the consumer has to fight to get back whatever feel the billing system added for your late payment (as not clearing the due balance in full is seen as a late payment).

No, I don't think this is right, but what are you going to do? It is often easier to play their game as it means the payments are in sync with the billing system with its oh-so-clever booby-traps do not tie you down to endless CS calls to right a wrong (that probably shouldn't have happened in the first place).

 

Here of course is where we run into a problem in that "is there intelligent life in a PPC" - probably more chance of finding it on Mars or Venus.

...or Uranus.....

Good morning all

These people who issue these tickets are as responsible as the Company they 'work' for and as such are liable to prosecution under the 'Aid, Abet, Counsel or Procure' procedure.

I would suggest they consider alternative employment...or risk a holiday at one of HM's Fun Parks...

As always

Dougal

(1) Afraid making payment IS agreement. To assert otherwise is that it was made under duress or harassment, and this would have to be proved first - and almost impossible to do so.

 

(2) The Invoice was for services rendered - their argument being the customer agreed to the terms of parking, and when billed for the transgression then paid up. Attempting to roll this back to say there was no agreement invokes side arguments that make such recovery difficult, if not impossible.

Good morning all

I a sorry but as far as the law is concerned this is not accurate. The invoice itself is actually invalid, as it has no grounds in law - only in the belief of the company that they can issue tickets in this way.

The reason is that the Car Park itself is private property, and the many tickets I have seen from a lot of different people, appear to 'represent' themselves as being issued under particular Acts of Law, which do not relate to private property.

It is true to say that you may be asked to pay a fee for parking on private property by the owner of the land. He/she may also employ someone to collect that money on his/her behalf. He/she may also pay that person (or company) for doing so. He/she may bank the money so received.

However the parking company he/she employs may NOT issue tickets of its own volition for 'parking charges' on private land which it does not own.

The ONLY person who can enforce non-payment is the owner of the land.

To claim otherwise is in my opinion an act of dishonesty. The issuing of County Court documents stating otherwise is (again in my opinion) a deliberate act of Fraud.

If whoever owns the land (usually a supermarket or similar) want to charge you for parking they should clearly say so and have arrangements for doing so in place.

I would ask the 'parking companies' (CP Plus and others), one question:

"Please can you tell me which Act of Law valid within the United Kingdom do you issue these parking tickets under?"

You will find that the answer is : None.!

Simply ignore them or report them to the Police.

As always

Dougal

Dougal, what you overlook is that payment IS acceptance. (What 'reasonable person' would pay for something for services not agreed or supplied?).

Since the pursuit of a refund (since the expectation is that the PPC will ignore you and/or reject your claim) they can either fight the consumer in court, to justify their position, and they will have the upper hand in law, Of course, they may not be bothered to travelling 100's of miles to defend an action and lose with the pursuer getting judgement by default, which although a victory for the consumer, just shows it is cheaper in real terms for them not to defend.

Then there's getting the money awarded. Each step of the way the consumer must pay more in the expectation of repayment (and no guarantee of success), and any fly-by-night outfit can simply close down and re-form for a cost less that the money they are asked to pay.

As for 'reporting them to the Police' - this is a civil matter, and the complainant will be told this. As for which 'Law' these tickets are issued... there IS no mystery, it's Contract Law.

But the point you've missed is that there is a very obvious ground for reclaiming payment of a PPC ticket: mistake induced by its misleading presentation. Just about everyone who pays such a ticket does because they believe it's a real parking ticket.

Nope, not forgotten it - as it is an irrelevance. The purchaser has certain responsibilities to ensure they are properly paying for services rendered. You seem to think this 'nanny state' of ours will take care of it all? It will not.

Going back 20 years, the favourite was the 'directory [problem]' where firms were sent Invoices (very official looking - but that was the point). It was for a directory entry, or A4 paper, or manilla envelopes, anything that a firm would reasonably purchase in its course of business. Many of these were passed to the accounts department and paid with the genuine ones. Once the error was spotted, how successful do you thin they were in getting this money paid back? None that I've been aware of, because the mistake was theirs, they had to pay for their own stupidity.

Nothing has changed in the intervening years. No PPC has been prosecuted for misrepresentation, even though they use terms like (1) PCN (2) Appeal (3) Fine, and have pseudo-enforcement trading names like 'County Parking' and a whole bucketload of similar styles (CPS, anyone?) to lend credibility to their business model.

Once the money has been paid over, getting it back is the problem. It is not for the first time I have heard a judge imply the pursuer should have been more diligent before parting with their money. This is not to say some actions would be successful, each will depend on its own merits - but it would be foolish to mislead CAGgers that any payment they make that turns out to be a mistake is easily recoverable. It isn't, and it never will be.

Small claims is never a walk in the park, but there's a difference between being legally irrecoverable or just difficult.

You must recognise we've seen a couple of PPCs who have lost a county court claim when the victim was mislead and so paid. I'm not making it up!

I know your not - but it remains important not to simplify the situation so that it appears to be a mere formality. I've seen PPCs fail ONLY because of the visibility of their signage ('invisibility' actually) so the imagined contract was just that... a figment of the PPCs business model.

However I have seen 1 case (by accident) where the PPC won, and the pursuer's action dismissed, as they admitted they saw the signage and did overstay the time period, therefore paying and seeking a subsequent repayment was illogical (to the judge).

By all means never pay, and stand your ground, the chances of action to pursue you will most likely come to nothing. Pay, and then attempt recovery through the courts is less assured, and a risk that needs to be calculated.

Fair points.

Dougal, what you overlook is that payment IS acceptance. (What 'reasonable person' would pay for something for services not agreed or supplied?).

 

Since the pursuit of a refund (since the expectation is that the PPC will ignore you and/or reject your claim) they can either fight the consumer in court, to justify their position, and they will have the upper hand in law, Of course, they may not be bothered to travelling 100's of miles to defend an action and lose with the pursuer getting judgement by default, which although a victory for the consumer, just shows it is cheaper in real terms for them not to defend.

 

Then there's getting the money awarded. Each step of the way the consumer must pay more in the expectation of repayment (and no guarantee of success), and any fly-by-night outfit can simply close down and re-form for a cost less that the money they are asked to pay.

 

As for 'reporting them to the Police' - this is a civil matter, and the complainant will be told this. As for which 'Law' these tickets are issued... there IS no mystery, it's Contract Law.

Good morning

Whilst I bow to your status as a Royalties member, I really must take issue with a couple of points:

1. It is NOT Contract Law in England. A read of (a) the Preamble and (b) the Law of Contract will show clearly that a contract is entered into by two (usually) parties on an equal understanding of their own and the other's position and liabilities.

2. If the Police tell you it is a 'Civil Matter', you need to do two things

(A). Get the name and warrant number of the Officer who told you that (incidentally NEVER just ask their counter staff they are no longer serving Police officers, they are civilian staff.) and then;

(B). Make a complaint to the IPCC. It IS a Criminal matter. The actions of these clowns falls completely within the definitions found in the old Theft Act and the Fraud Act 2006.

Finally if a Legal definition of these 'parking firms' position exists then please point me towards it!¬

I personally have successfully defeated several 'Parking Penalty Charge' tickets from different companies. I also believe (though I have yet to fully test this), that the Company that employ these people to 'look after' their car parks are also guilty of an offence (certainly under the Aid, Abet, Counsel and Procure procedure). Maybe I'll try that tactic next time - which I am sure is not far away!

Strange isn't it? No one seems to have written/contacted the stores that use these 'services', and asked for their view. (mentioning in the letter that the actions of these parking firms are unlawful) - definitely in my view!

As always each of us must take our own course in life,

Best wishes to all

Dougal

I think you'll find CAG lives in the 'real' world - one where actual events are relevant, not what might be ideals (whether real or imagined) and open the door to time-wasting tangents that will, ultimately do nothing to further a satisfactory resolution, or indeed solve the problem at all.

As to your numbered points -

When the signage states 'use of this CP means you have agreed to these terms' and the parker then does just that, there is an assumption that such an agreement has been made. Often this is a load of bunkum, but enough to ensure litigation can go the distance (rather than be summarily dismissed)

By all means insist it is a criminal matter. And this will achieve what? At best a 50/50 decision, and in the event you get a decision in your favour, it will then require someone to find the time from their busy schedule to actually do something about it. Because the've been told to do so does not engender a positive pursuit of the case - in fact quite the opposite.

Regarding Aid, Abet, Counsel and Procure procedure - I would suggest this wouldn't even get to the prosecution stage, as it is irrelevant to a civil action, and the police have much more serious abuses to deal with. So how you could use this as a 'tactic' eludes me.

The stores HAVE been contacted by disgruntled parkers - read responses from Tesco, where they are apologetic, but go on to state that (effectively) they need this level control to prevent parking anarchy.

When you see th (mis)use of special disabled spaces by able motorists, I quite agree with them.

RE: CP Plus Ltd £50 charge notice

Just had one of these slapped on my car today when i was shopping at Morrisons,it says if pay within 14 days i only need to pay £25 and if i do not pay within 28 days my details will be obtained from the DVLA resulting in further action and a £40 admin added to the initial £50.

I usually get a parking ticket from the machine but today none of the machines would take the £2 coin i had so i assumed they werent working, i thought f**k it and went into morrisons for 30mins came back and found notice stuck on my window.

Also,not sure if i should have done this but in a fit of rage i sent them an email disputing the charge

Should i just igore this notice and any letters i receive from them ???

Cheers

should i just igore this notice and any letters i receive from them ???

yes

RE: CP Plus Ltd £50 charge notice

 

Just had one of these slapped on my car today when i was shopping at Morrisons,it says if pay within 14 days i only need to pay £25 and if i do not pay within 28 days my details will be obtained from the DVLA resulting in further action and a £40 admin added to the initial £50.

 

The registered keepers details will be obtained, which may or may not be you:wink:

 

I usually get a parking ticket from the machine but today none of the machines would take the £2 coin i had so i assumed they werent working, i thought f**k it and went into morrisons for 30mins came back and found notice stuck on my window.

 

Also,not sure if i should have done this but in a fit of rage i sent them an email disputing the charge

 

Not really a good idea. Now they will send you a response saying 'your appeal' has failed and pay their begging letter.

 

Should i just igore this notice and any letters i receive from them ???

 

YES

 

Cheers

regards

thread closed

please start a new thread

follow my sig below

dx