Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

1 Follower

About GazNicki

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi all Quick update. We have received the second letter which is titled "FINAL NOTIFICATION LETTER" and requesting the sun of £100. Is the next step to still wait?
  2. I've got some photos from the evening. It was lighter in the photos than the evening in question - but you can clearly see no signage is illuminated - and what signage there is, is very little. I've taken a shot of the drivers-style view on entrance too. What are my next steps? The wife is worried about the process.
  3. I've got a screengrab of the app showing the difficulty. I will drive past one day this week and get the photo's. It's next to the Gym so will be going back this week.
  4. The carpark she paid for in error is a Council Operated Carpark called Harrogate Street Carpark.
  5. 1. Date of the infringement - 06/01/2020 2. Date on the NTK - 14/01/2020 [scan up BOTHSIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] 3 Date received - 17/01/2020 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] - Yes 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - Yes, Only small images of the registration plate. 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] - No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up - N/A 7 Who is the parking company? - Euro Car Parks 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] - Rodney Street Car Park, Wigan For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. - POPLA is mentioned under the appeals, BPA logo is on the letter. If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here - This is the first, and only, correspondence. ECP_PCN_-_17-01-2020-1-merged-compressed_(1).pdf
  6. My wife has been issued a PCN from Euro Car Parks for £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days). The letter is dated 14/01/2020 and was received 17/01/2020. The "offence" happened on the 06/01/2020 when my wife entered the car park and parked up. There is only 1 pay meter on the site, and this had a queue of people. There is only one sign on entry to the car park and this is not illuminated. The car park is poorly lit. The carpark permits payment via PayByPhone app, which my wife did. She accessed the app, and picked the available carparks from the map with a tap and paid for 2 hours. The carpark she selected was the one next door. The carpark she was actually on did not appear as a clickable lot on the app. This is a genuine mistake, and she honestly thought she had paid for 2 hours of parking on the carpark she was actually on. This is a carpark she has used in the past. I don't think that a charge of £60 (and especially £100) is a justifiable charge when 2 hours would have been £1.90. Is there anything we can do to reduce this charge? My wife is of the mindset of just paying, but I am not. I know this is just an invoice, but I know that some companies do chase to CCJ which is something we do not want. Please help.
  7. Then in that case, the amount quoted in the VT section is incorrect. The amount quoted is exactly 50% of the total amount including the deposit paid.
  8. Thanks Andy. Sorry, but I'm still confused. Does the VT price include the cash deposit or is it just the amount borrowed including any interest? In other words, is the VT amount correct or have they got it wrong?
  9. Thanks Andy. I was reading somewhere that the 50% mark is only applicable to the balance of the finance, not the total balance. Am I wrong? If I am wrong, then I should be able to VT now as I have made more than 50% of the agreement as stated when the cash deposit is taken into consideration.
  10. I bought a caravan in August 2016, during the process was somewhat misled with the purchase and how beneficial it could be. I can afford the repayments, but unfortunately the information we was given on purchase wasn't 100% accurate and our homework wasn't as thorough as it could be, so now we are in a position where we cannot afford the site fees for the caravan and are now looking at the caravan being evicted off the park. This however leaves us in a bad spot as there is nowhere else for thee caravan to go, and moving it off site is expensive. The whole game is wrapped right up. I purchased the caravan for £11995. I paid a cash deposit of £5691. I took out a HP agreement on the remaining balance of £6304. Looking at my HP agreement for options, there is an option to "Terminate the HP Agreement" which for us would probably be the best solution. The text reads as follows: Reading this, the amount payable is exactly 50% of the total amount of the van. The cost of the HP, including the interest at 12.9% is £7997.28. £7997.28 + the cash deposit of £5691.00 = £13688.28 50% of £13688.28 = £6844.14 Reading this, then the agreement includes the cash deposit. Therefore, in order to make the total of £6844.14 I would need to make 7 monthly payments on top of the deposit to have the ability to terminate. However, speaking to the HP company, it appears that the total that should be in the Termination section is incorrect. I don't really want my credit report to be destroyed over this mistake as I am looking to be buying a house in the next 3 years. Please can you help? My main issue is that the balance for the VT is wrong. The balance for VT should be 50% of the amount on finance, not the total amount of the entire purchase. When I phoned the creditor, they confirmed that it was wrong. Basically, the amount to VT should be 50% of the finance, which including interest is 50% of £7997.28 = £3998.64. However, they have taken the full balance including the cash deposit into consideration. My question is, where do I stand now. If the entire balance, including the cash deposit is taken into consideration, then I have paid more than 50% of that agreement as my cash deposit and the 7 payments made to date exceeds the 50% mark. If they do not take the cash deposit into consideration, then there is an outstanding balance, but the agreement I have in front of me is wrong. My issue is that if the latter is applicable, the caravan will need to be put somewhere until the 50% is paid unless the creditor will take the van off me and agree for me to continue making payments until the 50% is reached (but that doesn't change the fact that the agreement is wrong). Please can you advise me on this. Several people, including myself, believe that the policy is incorrect and therefore void. What's your input? Please note: I have also posted this query on another site (Money Saving Expert), but am looking for solid advice so looking here too. Apologies to any member who has read this on there too.
  11. I'm not 100% sure that the land is council - as someone else mentioned that the signage shows a requirement for a NHS permit, so therefore I am assuming private land now. I do know the land (and multi-storey car park) were once council, but not NHS. Either way, the PCN from ANPR was issued wrongfully as there is photographic evidence that the vehicle was parked legally as it was a Sunday where the signage does not cover. So provided I don't mention "council land" I should be OK. But I think letting them know that I am prepared to write to the papers may make a better letter Additionally the letter outlining the location was wrong also, so they have also ballsed up there. Can't be given a ticket for a different location surely. 10 mins and I will have an update
  12. Can anyone please read through this letter and let me know if this letter is OK?
  13. Thanks ericsbrother Today I received another letter from ANPR. This letter, from a 'N. Martin' which reads: "Having read your letter dted xx/xx/xxxx, and taking into consideration your comment 'I am not liable for this charge and am under no obligation to name the driver of the vehicle.', along with our photographic evidence, ll goes towards confirming the incident and actually weakens any argument you may have considered you had. Please allow me to explain:- ..." The paragraph continues to explain how the code at the bottom of the ticket is broken down into type, time and who. Another paragraph belittles me with an explanation of the definition of 'Not displaying in the windscreen a current or valid permit'. A third paragraph outlines that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allows proceedings against the registered keeper of a vehicle. A final paragraph says, 'in light of the above, perhaps you will understand why the PCN was issued, and although I really do sympathise, I must stress that we are contracted by the landowner to enforce the terms & conditions that are stated on the signage at the location, and in these circumstances they have been breached. In conclusion we would suggest that you may wish to re-consider your claim to appeal, as this would nullify any discounts that remain and (should you lose) may incur further costs. If you still feel that you have a valid case to appeal, please write to us against and we will provide you with full details for the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA).' Now, do I hit them with a stern letter? How should I approach this one - as reading this leaves me with red mist!
  • Create New...