Jump to content

Barnsley Boy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Barnsley Boy

  1. I too do not recommend sending an empty envelope. There should be a blank piece of people [or a print out of the Mansfield excel court debacle] inside, "check enclosed"
  2. MET are full of BS as always. They respond "Do not uphold your request" which was to resolve the dispute through the courts with letters threatening "legal proceedings". Are they thick or what? I'm sure that you doing the best thing by continuing to ignore.
  3. Excel WILL write to you, the threats will multiply as you continue to ignore them [and so you should]. Just keep your nerve. By all means come back here for reassurance anytime. On no account consider paying these latter day Dick Turpins.
  4. NO - they keep on sending them because you haven't paid - nor should you! Letshelp is saying is that having sent the first "final demand" which you ignore, they will send maybe another three before it gets through their thick skulls that you are not playing. When they realise, they will stop annoying you and go off and annoy someone else.
  5. How did you pay? If it was by credit card you could write to the card company saying the money was paid under duress and ask that the charge be cancelled. Your other option is to make a claim under MCOL. If you went down this route you would have to write to the clampers first, giving them an option to settle [letter before action] More about clamping here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/137863-clamping-guide.html
  6. Such lazy reporting - why oh why do they call these tosh invoices "fines". 68904 - if you are in that part of the world I trust that you will writing in to educate and inform.
  7. Sanjvw - yes the ppcs and dcas do drone on about credit ratings and so on. Don't worry it is all pure bollox - here's the truth of it: From Adenuff’s Posting A typical Private Parking Company might have an intimidating standard threat letter that says something like this "FINAL REMINDER BEFORE LEGAL ACTION" "Failure to pay the full balance outstanding within 7 days of the date of this notice could result in the balance outstanding being registered as a debt against you in the County Court. A warrant may then be issued to bailiffs to recover payment. You will also become liable for the additional fees of the County Court and the bailiff together with any legal costs and interest involved. Your ability to obtain credit in the future could be affected" This whole paragraph is a total misrepresentation designed to indicate that if you don't pay now, everything will be taken out of your hands and all sorts of dire things will happen. Total cods 1. Failure to pay now cannot of itself result in anything being registered against you as a debt in the County Court 2. In order for you to get a CCJ (County Court Judgement) registered against you ALL of the following have to take place (a) the company concerned have to issue a claim against you. This costs them a fee, typically £30.00 for a normal parking ticket (b) you either do not enter a defence because you forgot, are daft or some other reason ( in which case the Claimant will request a judgement in default) OR much less likely the case actually goes to a hearing and you lose and that that having lost, you do not pay the Judgement debt within 28 days of the judgement being entered against you. A Bailiffs warrant would only be issued if you lost and didn't pay the judgement debt as instructed by the judge. Your credit rating would only be affected if you had a CCJ which you didn't pay Your credit rating is assessed by combining information about you available in the public domain (such as unsatisfied CCJs, Bankruptcies and things like whether or not you are on the Electoral Roll) and information about you which is shared by the major lenders and which you have given them permission to share because it forms part of the credit agreement terms which you have to sign when you take out a loan or get a new credit card. It does not include information provided by filthy [problematic] or other assorted scumbags
  8. Rmurphy, These guys are chancers of the first order. You will simply have to keep your nerve and keep on ignoring them. One of their tactics is to send unsigned court papers, again ignore, in fact ignore everything apart from actual court papers [posted from the court]. If this did happen to you, you would be the first person it did. Read the thread below, GuidoT has had over 70 tickets from these jokers including numerous unsigned court papers. Guess what, after studious ignoring, no further action was taken whatsoever. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/71953-opc-private-parking-tickets.html
  9. Pat - erudite as always: Relevant extract of RTRA 1984 attached [RTRA 1984 S.63A(3) (b) Parking attendants. — (1) A local authority may provide for the supervision of parking places within their area by individuals to be known as parking attendants. (2) Parking attendants shall also have such other functions in relation to stationary vehicles as may be conferred by or under any other enactment. (3) A parking attendant shall be— (a) an individual employed by the authority; or (b) where the authority have made arrangements with any person for the purposes of this section, an individual employed by that person to act as a parking attendant. However, in this case, it may be that Excel have taken over wholesale management of the car park rather then just providing attendants acting as agents of the council. In this case would not RTRA S33(7) be more applicable. Relevant extract below. 33. Additional powers of local authorities in connection with off-street parking places. (7) A local authority shall have power to enter into arrangements with any person under which, in consideration of the payment by him to the authority of a lump sum, or of a series of lump sums, he is authorised to collect and retain the charges made in respect of the parking of vehicles in an off-street parking place provided by the authority under section 32 of this Act. If this is indeed the case, would Excel also have delegated powers to enforce? I rather think not, but that is just my opinion, a far from expert one at that. Full Act here, for those with the stamina - http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2223862
  10. Not quite, Court judgement first, not paid = Bailiff [scary people with statutory powers] Prior to court = debt collector - these guys have no power whatsoever, all they can do is ask you for money. You do not even have to give them the time of day.
  11. You will simply have to call their bluff. They are threatening you with the small claims court. Do not be intimidated by this because: 1. There is every chance that they will not carry out their threat. Their case really is very weak. 2. If they did, with any sort of proper defence, you would win. Sounds daunting but we come across these threats from private parking companies all the time but legal action is EXTREMELY rare, less than 1 in 1000 cases by most peoples reckoning. Either ignore completely or send a short response "see you in court". Either way stop worrying and get on with your life.
  12. Some links here: Warsop Web Letters http://www.excelparking.co.uk/downloads/flyer/Excel%20Flyer%20Issue%206.pdf Although excel claim on their website that they manage the car park for the council under the RTRA 1984, this certainly deserves checking. After all, they have something of a reputation for being somewhat casual with the truth. Yes, Excel have a contract with the council for the management of the car park, but is this a wholesale contracting out or are Excel acting as an agency? Jeeves, could you scan in the paperwork, washed of all personally identifying information? We should be able to tell from this whether Excel are acting on their own account or not.
  13. From Lamma's posting - from another WJ thread: In the Exeter County Court No 3009 of 2008 W J PARKING LIMITED (Company Number 04427096) Nature of Business: Car park management services. Registered Office of Company: c/o Bishop Fleming, Stratus House, Emperor Way, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3QS. Date of Appointment: 22 August 2008. Joint Administrators’ Names and Address: Jeremiah Anthony O'Sullivan and Samuel Jonathan Talby (IP Nos 8333 and 9404), both of Bishop Fleming, 2nd Floor Stratus House, Emperor Way, Exeter Business Park, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3QS. just search the gazette for the company number. nice to have the addresses of the directors of the PPC as well in case you wish to write directly The website still works though - what's the chances of a phoenix rising from the ashes?
  14. Probably not directly, but the administrator may sell on the "debt" to a debt collector who may send you landfill "on behalf" of WJ. This has happened on a number of previous occasions. Quite often the debt collector does not have any details regarding the original incident, making any remote possibility of court action even more inconceivable.
  15. M Davz, You may be being a bit previous here. ANPR International are a sister company of the notorious Excel. Assuming the business methods are the same, I don't think they can resist sending you some more landfill through through your letterbox. Wouldn't it be so much easier for everyone were they just to post their letters straight to landfill - cut out the middle man !
  16. may take a few more unanswered letters though.
  17. UKPC are persistant at sending letters - but that is ALL they do. As others have said, let them rack up time and money in wasted effort.
  18. Yes, their case, such as it is, is based on contract. The contract is with an individual living breathing human being. It is not with an inaminate object [car]. If you wish to pursue a debt, the minimum requirement is to establish who owes you the money.
  19. Cross Country are not a PPC, they are a train operator, hence the railway byelaws are applicable. However, you mentioned NCP in your original post, they are a PPC. If the fine is payable to "Cross Country" then it is likely that NCP are acting on behalf of Cross Country, railway byelaws may well apply, you should not ignore. However, if the "fine" is payable to NCP, then it may just be the usual PPC misinformation. It is worth a detailed check of your paperwork.
  20. The small claims court IS a bit rough and ready. Not quite a lottery, but a certain random element nevertheless. When things get so far then it can go either way. The point is that the PPCs cannot possibly build a business model around taking people to court all the time. They would much prefer us to meekly accept their threats and pay accordingly. Clamping is a different subject entirely. It is far more difficult to get your money back than not have to give it over in the first place.
  21. Privity of contract comes into this. How do the hospital know that the "I" who parked the car is the same as the "I" who gets the bill through the post. The PPCs assume that the driver is always the same as the registered keeper. This is not always the case, it is not even mostly the case. The wording of the signage and the visibility is also very important. Most wording is rubbish and simply does not establish a contract. In answer to your specific question, if I got an unsolicited invoice from one of these cowboys through the post, I'd ignore it completely.
  22. Yes, UKCPS & UKPC are different companies. UCCPS here: UKCPS Car Park Management UKPC here: UKPC - Parking Solutions - UK Parking Enforcement Agency separate companies, same tosh business model
  23. The SIA bit only comes in for car clamping. SIA membership can only be obtained for individuals having no criminal record and who've taken a short [4 day ?] course with a multiple choice test at the end. A modest enough entrance requirement but it seems to trip most PPCs up .
  24. Unfortunately, not all lawyers are well informed about private parking companies. The truth is that these companies will threaten court all the time but actual cases are VERY rare. They know that, against any kind of competant defence they would lose. It is much cheaper to send their threats by 2nd class post. We have not heard of any cases MET have taken to court. It may be that, by appealing, you have admitted to being the driver. This overcomes one of the many hurdles that MET have to cross. Do not worry unduly. There are still many reasons why MET would fail. Keep the evidence. Given that you have already communicated with MET perhaps one more letter may be in order. "I note the result of the "appeal". I disagree with your conclusions. I suggest that we simply agree to disagree. However, should you still wish to pursue this matter, I undertake to pay your "fine" upon direction of the court and only upon direction of the court. Should you undertake court proceedings please note that I intend to defend the action vigourously. y/f"
  25. You have already written to them too much. Ignore everything from them from now on. They allege a breach of contract. Do you remember signing a contract? Do you remember verbally agreeing to a contract or even realise that a contract was being proposed? Even if you did breach a contract, the trust would only be able to claim damages, based on loss. In this case it would be difficult to see that any loss has actually been incurred. The truth is that, away from actual roads, double yellow lines mean diddly squat. They are just paint - no legal significance. An NHS trust has no legal authority to fine you, they are assuming powers they simply don't have. You may get further letters but they will just contain empty threats, nothing will come of it. Some background reading - in this case the NHS trust is acting as a private parking company. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/65341-private-parking-companies-charges.html
  • Create New...