Never heard of that one...

Thought next task you were asked to do was photos?

I followed the link to DCA letters in the post above and looked at the 21st one. Sorry please clarify!

post 21 in this thread....

Sorry for my misunderstanding.

I am not sure if I will be able to get the pictures soon

am wondering what to do re latest letter

- post 21 suggests I read the 2012 act requirements to note in which ways the letters wording have been non compliant.

but also to post again when they write.

I am unclear whether I should be responding to their latest letter and if so how.

Thanks

what does every thread say about dca's? IGNORE THEM

Will do! PS can I donate to this site without using paypal?

unsure will have to ask

click on my red link below

Hi again,

We have now received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus about intended court action.

They give a payment date and suggest if it goes to court we may have to pay fees and solicitors costs; also mentions the Supreme Ct ruling in Nov 2015.

Here is the (hopefully successfully) redacted letter

redacted havens view DRP letter.pdf

They do like the use of the word "may"!

These DCAs have no powers whatsoever, so ignore them, all you've got is a pathetic attempt at a scary letter.

Congratulations, you now have the 3 template letter set from dr+ so now you can ignore even more.

so having read hundreds of similar letters on other posts here you have reached what conclusion about letters from DR+?

You cannot just rely on your own thread for help,

you MUST read great wodges of other stuff both here and in other motoring advice web sites.

The parking prankster's blogspot is a great place to go

but there are other motoring forums that are useful as well,

even if they do appear to get their info over a bit slower then here!

Ok I get it - keep ignoring!!! Thanks

no, not just that, do your homework.

All of the posters who give advice on all of these forums have gained their experiance by suffering the attempts of one organisation or another trying to extract money out of them for one rason or another.

having taken the rockier road and fought back we have the desire to help others suffering a similar fate and would like to see the worst of the chisellers brought to account.

Whatever the field, be it parking, loans, utilities etc we all want best practice and accountability for wrongdoing.

Doesnt seem a lot when the law is on our side but damned near impossible to implement

Thanks as ever for all the advice etc.

Have now got a pic of the signage but can't upload

- am getting an error message from the forum about red font (?).

However, I have received another letter from DRP saying they are advising Smart Parking to take court action.

I have been reading a lot of the advice on forums etc and have a slight confusion between recommendations to ignore the letters or to write to the owner of the carpark (if I can find that out - Tenpin where I was visiting couldn't help with that) asking whether they authorise legal action.

maybe I haven't understood everything but I am not sure which of these routes are best to follow.

Given that I can't upload my photo is there particular info from the wording that would help here?

Thanks

Here's the signage

Havens bank signage pdf.pdf

the signage is confusing,

it says about the charge being operational 24 hours a day but you cant get a refund all of that time so the offer to park is really conditional.

Also it says it costs £3 to park for 3 hours and that is the max time but no mention that you get charged £90 for the next 15 minutes, just a vague mention of paying £90 for breaching some conditions that are expressed clearly under that warning

but doesnt mention being charged for an overstay so it is not a contractual condition that you pay them when you stop there longer than they allow.

Also, as I dont play, how long does a bowling game last?

Is it a realistic expectation that you ask to leave halfway through a game just to move your car onto the public highway because the meter has run out.?

In short the signage too vague and confusing to create a contract with particular errors that damn it.

Glad to hear the signage isn't good enough.

Clearly if we had seen it we would have paid!

It was pouring when we arrived so didn't actually see any of the signs at all.

We were 5 people so playing two games which would take 90 mins to a couple of hours but could play more/have more people plus there are several other activities in the bowling centre, also food which adds more time.

You could easily spend more than 3 hours there.

still need to see what is written on the ticket machne at this site

Have asked on another thread re this carpark whether anyone can get a picture of the ticket machine.

In the meantime have had another letter from DRP

- recommending to the client that they appoint a solicitor to start court action.

They give time to pay - till 6/11/17 and an offer to pay by instalments up to that date.

It states this is the final offer to settle and then the usual info on what happens if court action is taken.

read it PROPERLY

doesn't say WILL ANYTHING

dx

and you will continue to ignre them as they have no interest in anything

Yes - thanks again

OK jammyk has posted up pictures and these are gold dust as far as awards for the most meaningless signage of the year goes. Contracts that refer to other contracts not present? what century were these signs written in, the 18th? Felthouse v Bindley 1862 sets the pace for this and that is without any consideration of consumer rights legislation from the 1970's onwards.

Well that's more good news!

I have received a PCN from the same company for the same car park today.

I had a ticket for 2 hours and left 11 min late (largely due to access from an area outside of the retail park being closed off and having to follow a diversion that took longer).

the signage is incorrent - can I appeal this with Smart Parking then?