How long since the original contravention for you Barsteward? Just want to get a feeling for how long they continue this nonsense before they give up? I guess this is what we can expect when you put the management of car parks into the hands of private companies. The reality is people wouldnt mind paying it if it was a fair and proportionate charge, what we dont want is our money going into the MD annual bonus payment. Interestingly enough this is an outsourced contract for a University Campus and the University Parking Policy includes the following statement "Failure to comply with the above regulations will result in action being taken by the Operator or the University and the imposition of a penalty fine. NOTE: PENALTY FINES IMPOSED BY THE OPERATOR CANNOT BE OVERTURNED BY THE UNIVERSITY. ALL APPEALS, CORRESPONDENCE, DISCUSSION, ETC REGARDING A PENALTY FINE MUST BE CONDUCTED DIRECTLY WITH THE OPERATOR. Any person against whom action is taken by the University, as a result of a breach of the above regulations which cannot be enforced by the operator, is entitled to appeal through the mechanism of existing University policies and procedures. The appeal must be on the grounds that the offence was not committed or that for any reason a penalty ought not to be imposed. Appeals must be made in writing within 14 days from the date of notification of the commencement of the action." If the University has outsourced their operation, how do they have a legal right to take action under contract law. Secondly why are they using the word Penalty Fine in their car Park policy? Do you think I should write to them and point this out?

Here is the first correspondence that arrived through my letter box. Note I was not the driver of the vehicle. I dont want to say too much as I am concious of the fact that these companies trawl the forums looking for evidence. Notice To Owner Page 1: Page 2: Astounded by the cost of the parking charge ?I did some research on the internet and posted the following template response. Dear Sir or Madam I refer to the above PCN dated XX/XX/XX which was sent to me as the Registered Keeper of this vehicle. It should be noted that this is the first correspondence I have received on the issue. As you are aware this incident is covered by Contract Law which can only be agreed by the parties that entered in to the contract. In this case the driver of the vehicle who may or may not have read the sign. This vehicle is used by several drivers and therefore I would request further photographic evidence in an attempt to establish the identity of the driver who entered into the contract. These should be a clear and concise picture of the driver of the vehicle. The photographs should show the time and date of the incident and be accompanied by a copy of the latest calibration certificates from the independent contractor that verifies the timings of the cameras that take these photographs. Also supply a copy of the Parking Charge Terms and Conditions plus evidence of under whose authority you are acting. Secondly I would like to bring your attention to consumer legislation called the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). In particular the Schedule 2 Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of Terms which may be Regarded as Unfair (e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. The amount of £100 for an overstay in a car park whose annual permit is a mere £25 per annum certainly is captured within the spirit of this clause. For damages to be justifiable and enforceable by the courts they must be a reflection of actual loss. Please can you explain how the breach of this contract resulted in the loss of £100 to yourselves? Unless you can supply ALL this information within 7 days I am afraid I can help you no further and ask that you cancel this notice forthwith. Yours Faithfully, ...................... In reply I received the following from Excel ............... "In response to your ceorrespondence received Day/Month/Year 2009 we acknowledge your statement that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, however you were not the driver on the day when the parking contravention was committed at XXXXXX. In view of this fact we request you provide us with the name and address of the driver in charge of the vehicle on the said date so that we may pursue this matter of the outstanding charge accordingly. Pursuant to paragraph 4.2 of the Pre-Action Protocol, we must advise you that this is a reasonable request in order that we may undertake the early and full exchange of information about the prospective legal claim and to enable the driver the opportunity to avoid civil proceedings by settling the charge before commencement of proceedings. Failure to provide the information as requested may constitute a non-compliance of the pre-action protocols and could result in Court Proceedings being brought against the vehicle registered keeper and judgement obtained for failing to adhere to said protocols and liability for the charge outstanding. Furthermore as the registered keeper of the vehicle you are legally required under the road Traffic Act to ensure that any vehicle legally registered to you, if not driven by you, s driven by a person to which you have given your consent and can verify that they are legally licensed and insured to do so. In support of our position we must draw upon the recent decision made in Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen J Thomas [2008]. The Court found that the identity of the driver will be proved based on the balance of probabilities. As such we maintain that you were either the driver on the day in question, or you are privy to the driver's identity. should the latter be true we ask that you assist us by forwarding the driver's contact details so that we may resolve this matter accordingly. However should you refuse to comply with the above, we must inform you we have enough evidence to warrant the pursuit of the debt with yourself. should this matter proceed to the County Courts then you will be required to provide a Statement of Truth as to whether you were the driver or not. Providing false information in a Court of law would be committing an act of perjury. furthermore as per the Pre-Action Protocols you are called on to act in a manner which facilitates the successful resolution of a dispute claim. In the event you act in a manner intended to stall or confuse the process this shall counter against your position during Court proceedings. Merely claiming that you were not necessarily the driver on the date of the contavention is not satisfactory in accordance with the aforementioned. We note your comments about Contract Law. a person can enter into contract either by expressly agreeing to do so, or by acting in such a way that he/she can be said to have implied agreement to enter into contract. Where notice is given too a motarist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by implication a motorist enters into contract with Excel PArking Services Ltd and accepts the Terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to park. A recent decision in the Court of Appeal has confirmed that provided that adequate notice of the consequences of parking in contravention is given the person parking accepts the terms as set in the Notice and therefore, consents to the risks and consequences. Regarding your request to provide you with the picture of the driver of the vehicle. We must advise that to pursue this matter we are not obliged to take or produce photographs of the driver of the vehicle in question. when our Parking Attendant issued the Notice he recorded the following statement, ' Parked on XXXXXX after 30 mins for loading/unloading' This statement has been recorded on our copy of the Parking Charge Notice. It is a legal document which can be produced as an evidence in court should the matter proceed that far. Regarding your comments about the cost of Parking charge Notice. Please be advised that our charge of £100.00 bear direct correlation to the contravention that you have committed when parking on private land. The £100.00 is inclusive of the Charge to the DVLA whenrequesting your personal details as you did not respond to the Original Parking Charge Notice. It also incorporates the postage and packaging of any correspondence from us and also any additional fees relates to the recovery process. This also explains why we offer a reduced charge if the debt is settled within the first 7 days of the issue date. Please ensure you provide requested information or payment of £100 by XX/MM/YY. Failure to comply will result in the issue of court proceedings whereby further costs will be incurred." ............... Note I have looked up the charge for the DVLA request and it appears to be about £2.50 add to this the cost a of a few stamps and the cost of any contravention and we are a long way short of the £100 claimed. I will post the letters I am planning to write to the DVLA and BPA next....

I have recently received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) From Excel Parking which has been followed 7 days later by the issue of a "Notice to Owner" demanding payment of £100. I have written to Excel which on reflection may have been a mistake and received a template response from the Company. I have now chosen to ignore further correspondence from this company and write to the BPA and DVLA about the issue. I have opened this thread to provide a chronological history of the case and post all correspondence for your review. Documents to follow... off to the scanner.

I am struggling to understand the wording of this paragraph This 'Charge' is in fact an invoice from a private company and is not a [“Fixed Penalty Charge”/”Penalty Charge Notice/”Parking Charge Notice”]. Does it realy make sense to say "The "Charge" is in fact an invoice from a private company and is not a Parking Charge Notice. When it clearly is a Parking charge Notice. Im a little confused with this small part of the template letter. Shall i just take this para out? Not sure about the validity of this paragraph also Please note neither of these documents contains the actual address of Excel Parking which I am advised is in breach of "The Companies (Registrar, Languages and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006 No.3429)" as this legislation appears to relate to trading disclosures and doesnt seem to make any explicit reference to the mandatory provision of address details? What is the actual address of Excel Parking? Should I be opening a new thread as I do not wish to hijack snicos thread? Can the moderator split this thread?

Thanks for the additional links lamma there is certainly some key information in there. I will need to re-read to ensure I have digested the information correctly, and then intepret in view of my own case. I am contemplating following the suggested course of action by writing to - The DVLA - The BPA - The University Estates Department. I guess if we dont register our frustrations with the current practices then we cannot expect improvement. Ignoring the issue is not going to bring about change.

Snico4, I have read your thread with great interest and it has encouraged me to join this forum as I am desperate to know the outcome of your plight for two reasons: a) because you sound like a law abiding citizen who I feel needs to be protected against such corporate bullies. I believe it is aparent to all who read this thread that you deserve protection and you have encouraged the fatherly instinct within me to make a rare post. b) because I am now involved in a similar action with Excel Parking in defence of my daughter who is currently studying at the Uiversity of Cumbria. As we share the same plight, I thought I would share with you my experience of this organisation.(although a little less mature than your own case) THE CRIME Letter from Excel parking arrives at my house informaing me of a £100 fine after failing to appeal (within 7 days) against the Parking Charge Notice issued to my daughter in January. The charge is related to failure of payment and headed "Parked on campus with no permit in window after 30 minutes for loading and unloading". As a concerned parent I instantly confront my daughter with regard to her irresponsibilitiy. After an initial impulse of anger towards her (yes she should have told me about it), this was follwed by a fair and rationale explanation. She had breached the contract, but the renumeration to Excel parking appeared excessive. I therefore began to turn my anger on the economic commercial reasoning that had dictated this circumstance. Note: I am a law abiding citizen, I do note condone breaking legitimate/fair rules, I have an ingrained sense of fairness, I can easily afford the £100 fine, but..... this really rubs against my own personal sense of fairness. She is a student, and as is the case with all modern students, she will have significant financial difficulties to overcome. Add on top of this the fatherly instinct to protect, and you are now in the same mental zone. I therefore began to research information in order to better understand the situation and to offer protection. (In short I have now taken over responsibility to solve this issue). Fact: The annual parking fee for the her univerity campus is a mere £25 per year. (Needless to say I have asked my daughter to procure a ticket forthwith) My initial internet stop lead me to the following excellent post FAQs - Private Parking Companies/Charges (everything you need to know) The above is an excellent article that can certainly be used to provide a response in your own case with respect to harassment. As a result of reading this article I wrote eto Excel. (this was, on reflection perhaps a mistake) They responded blandly to the points raised anf the wording of the response implied no change in position on their part, I therefore began a broader trawl of the internat and came across multiple articles which have all been filed in preparation for any court action. After much research however my conclsion is this: 1) Excel have alegal authority comparable to your next door neighbour. View them as the neighbour complaining about your fence height. Do not be fooled into their corporate bully boy tactics into either paying or disclosing any information. 2) The charge of £100 falls foul of much legislation (See above URL), and as such they know it is unenforceable. 3) It appears to their credit they are persistant in their bluff tactics in an attempt to instigate a need for payment from law abiding citizens. 4) Any parking issue will ultimately be subject to a small claims procedure where mediation is offerred and legal costs of the third party are not incurred. 5) Even if you lost the case(unlikely), you simply pay them the £100 and that is the end of the matter. Therefore as you have been correctly advised to date my advice is to ignore all further correspondence unless it is a summons from the county court. The threat of a direct visit to your house is certainly illegal with respect to the Administration of Justice Act 1970. 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. following legislation: My strategy from this point forward is therfore: a) Ignore all future correspondence unless issued directly from the courts. b) Ensure I publicise the rogue practices of thsi organisation and their operational practices wherever possible. All the best Cocis Apologies for any typos but it is late Friday night and the wine is flowing in abundance. Here is a few more links for you to review: More dodgy parking practices from Excel Parking Services Ltd — The Roadside Lawyer Refund him Excel! - The Star BBC NEWS | UK | Drivers' anger at parking charges http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/137632-please-help-excel-parking-3.html http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autoco...ticle&id=56 Judge says Excel parking fines illegal - Mansfield Chad http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542355/Judge-quashes-300-parking-fine--set-frighten-intimidate-driver.html