Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Avg. Content Per Day

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


lookinforinfo last won the day on September 9 2018

lookinforinfo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,116 Excellent

About lookinforinfo

  • Rank
    Gold Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The idiots who run these parking companies are under the illusion that they can add any amount they want when using debt collectors to write a letter. Under the Office of Fair Trading Debt Guidelines they state 2 . 10[e] applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt is considered an unfair practice. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060716004337/http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/50F06527-9FC5-4610-B385-999D6E2A8950/0/oft664.pdf Now the OFT are no longer exist but these regulations have been accepted by the FCA and no Court would think that 60 pound is proportionate for sending out two letters when the maximum charge for the ticket is 100 pound. And of course you would criticise them charging interest from day one of the ticket issue rather than when the 60 was actually imposed.
  2. If they are able to locate the missing documents then there is the right to continue pursuit including going to Court. However as the debt is going back as long as it has, it is pretty unlikely that Tesco will have kept the original. Intrum might decide to send you a reconstituted agreement and if so please come back to us. It would be sensible to provide them with an address to prevent any chance of getting a CCJ though the backdoor.
  3. Well they can still remind you of the debt and everything would start up again if they found the contract. What they cannot do is take you to Court nor insist that you pay any more money. I presume you have stopped paying the one pound each month?
  4. I cannot believe VCS have been so stupid as to instigate Court proceedings. Not only has it cost them money to take it to Court with no chance of winning, but left themselves open to a demand for breach of GDPR.
  5. It's my understanding that the 60 pound extra charge can be challenged. In the OFT Debt Guidance notice, one of their stipulations was under Unfair Practices 210.e It won't be necessary for you to challenge that amount in Court since it probably won't get that far.
  6. Welcome to the Forum. You weren't to know but trying to get a ticket quashed from any of the majority of parking companies early on is virtually destined to fail. Plus if you identify as yourself as the driver you lose a major protection from POFA. These days the best procedure is to ignore them all unless they send you a letter before claim. these companies only take a small percentage of people to Court so it best to ignore them. Also it gives you time to check the legality of their demand and that they have complied with all the requirements necessary for them to win in Court. Very rarely do they manage it. The worst thing to do is to appeal straight away without knowing the full extent of how poor their speculative invoice demand is and the possibility that they have been able to form a contract between you and them. To find out whether their chances of winning in Court rise to anything like 10% we need to see photos of their signage in the car park and those photos need to be in pdf form so that we can enlarge them unlike the NTK you posted. There are often glaring mistakes on the NTK but they are barely legible on yours at the moment. The signs we are looking for are at the entrance, on the ticket machine if there is one and the other signs around the car park especially when the ones that are different from the others. The other thing to check is to check out online or direct with the local Council to see if they have planning permission to erect their signs and cctv cameras. This is a legal requirement under the Town and Country planning [advertisements] regulations. Once you are fully aware of just how bad VCS are at getting things right you will realise that you can safely ignore them. Not realising that the fact they have changed the length of time that motorists can stay would ever lead to them cancelling your ticket when the reason for the change was probably that they weren't robbing enough motorists blind with the old 2 hour limit. In any event, assuming that they do have Council permission [which is often unlikely] Councils usually stipulate 3 hours so they cannot arbitrarily alter it to make more money for themselves. In addition under the Code of Conduct that IAS have to comply with is that cars are allowed a minimum of ten minutes extra time to allow motorists to read the signs, find a place to park, then later pack their purchases in the car, return the trolley and make their way out. In fact BPA the other parking association allow 20 minutes for all that so it would not be unreasonable for a Judge to take that as the benchmark for IAS too. So just ignore them. They are totally dishonest and disreputable and not worth wasting a stamp or time on them. Because you have appealed they have a greater expectancy that you will now pay their ridiculous demand so they will try to frighten you with threats of Court and by the use of unregulated debt collectors demanding 160 pounds for goodness knows what reason. When you keep ignoring them they change tack and send begging letters and dropping the amount you need to pay. The truth is you owe them nothing so just post up the signs, redo the NTK and check with the Council and relax. We will give you any advice you need
  7. Correct just ignore their drivel. You never had a contract with Trace so they cannot charge you anything. few weeks and they may well come back and offer you a lesser amount to pay. Kind of them when you owe them nothing at all but all the World loves a tryer.
  8. Thanks for that Shamrocker. The obvious conclusion is when they don't respond at all that there are too many points missing that damage their case. It also speaks volumes when they only comply in part to the CPR request.
  9. This has nothing to do with how empty the carpark was-it is about contracts. You have fallen foul of their alleged contract with motorists by leaving the area ie not using the businesses that surround the car park. You weren't to know but your appeal used the wrong reason. You are not dealing with anything like honest people when you enter most controlled car parks. they are not interested in anything other than to screw as much money out of every motorist they can regardless of the legality. In your case, you appeared to have parked there for around 5 minutes [they would have recorded the exact time of when you entered and left the car park which is obviously not the same length of time that you actually parked there. Under the Code of Practice, motorists are allowed a minimum of ten minutes to find a parking spot, read the parking signage and decide whether they want to stay. If they leave before ten minutes there should be no charge. So had you appealed for that reason, it would be reasonable to assume that they should have cancelled your ticket. That does mean that they should not have contacted the DVLA and have thus breached GDPR so I would advise you that as they have not a leg to stand on just to ignore them for now. They know they would lose in Court but as they think you don't know about the ten minute rule they will continue to send threatening letters. However should they send a letter before claim-an unlikely event in the circumstances, come back to us and we will advise you how to blow them out of the water. It is best not to appeal again since you have already admitted that you were the driver which has lost your protection under POFA. Just accept that you owe them nothing and be happy that their greed outweighs their stupidity.
  10. So what they are saying is that even though you do have permit and you were allowed to be parked there, rather than just void the ticket which any honest company would do since you are a permit holder, they want to charge you 100 pound. Nice work if you can get it. The parking company seem to forget that they are there to prevent vehicles parking there who are unauthorised not to penalise residents who are allowed to park there.
  11. The letter from Gladstones is actually from DRP -the clue is in asking you to pay them and not Gladstones. I am not quite sure how they get away with masquerading as another company.
  12. Trace are breaking all the rules of debt collection. Not only are they assuming that the speculative invoice is actually owed but they are acting as Judge and Jury by thinking that you will lose in Court. And whatever you do in Court [eg win] you will still get a CCJ! That really is a disgrace and it's the second such letter I have read from them on this Forum in the past week. It has to be nipped in the bud since the whole letter is nothing but a collection of lies. Losing to the "Independent"Adjudicator [yeah right] is meaningless since virtually no one wins against them. It does not prove that those who lose are guilty or owe any money. It is unlikely PCM will take you to Court as they know they have lost other cases for the same reason as they are pursuing you. Unless you fail to turn up in Court you will win your case so no CCJ will be issued. If you don't turn up and you get a CCJ all you have to do is pay it off within a month and the CCJ is erased. A complaint to the FCA about Trace's letter is merited as there will be some people will believe the rubbish and pay up.
  13. Yes ignore their letter probably written by the teaboy. However the contents do merit a complaint to the FCA. Just because they take you to Court does not mean you will have to pay various costs nor a CCJ. The first two might happen if you lose but the CCJ would only happen if you both lost the case-highly unlikely, and then did not pay the fine off within a month. I remember slagging off a solicitor who wrote to me many years ago with a letter much more lawful than that and received an abject apology almost by return [obviously not BW Legal nor Gladstones]. I think Trace should get their knuckles rapped at least.
  14. This is a real dogs breakfast of an NTD. For a start it should be a Notice to Keeper and they would have been given the address of the keeper from the DVLA . And yet this drivel states "You have been named as the driver at the time the PCN was issued"!-my exclamation mark. They are clair voyant? Who told them who was driving? Then five lines below they say "if you were not the driver of the vehicle......." they ask for their address. Just when one would have thought that nothing could outdo the farce that is brexit along come GXS Services. Not only does it give us a good laugh at the expense of a parking company it also means that even if they had you bang to rights for not showing your permit [which they haven't] they have failed to comply with POFA so you can safely ignore them. One would hope that they would not be so stupid as to try Court a ta later date but given their record with you so far there are obviously doubts. If you get a pre action protocol please come back to us.
  15. Best to do EB's letter verbatim so that there is no thought by the crooks that you might be weakening so they feel an extra push might get you to cough up. Don't worry if you feel it is a bit rude-they are used to it and that version is EB's polite one.
  • Create New...