If what you are suggesting is anything like hwat is happening then you should have raised this when you inititally had the PCN. You say you had pictures of your car parked where it was with the ticket attached - you should have used this at the time and in your appeal. You may well be not in the position you are now. There are plenty of People on here and Pepipoo who, if you had received a PCN incorrectly could have advised you of how to appeal at the time. These picturs you mentioned would help too. Blagton

Only hassle if you let it be hassle. Grasp how they operate and it becomes quite lauagable (sadly) that we have a Government that lets it happen. Chances are their paperwork fails to meet statutory requirements anyway.Are they a Ltd Comapny ? If so does it show their Registered Address. Are they VAT registered ? If so does it show their VAT Number Their claims for Parking Charges of, for example £100 certainly have no legal standing - any suggestion that the Registered Keeper is liable (when they were not) is, shall we say B******s. There business plan is to scare the unwary into paying - obtaining money by deception and fraud you would think yes something would be done but no very little seems to be done about it and with the DVLA reaping in a few Bob they have no interest in seeing it stopped. Blagton

You already have have the advice by the sound of it Follow the three golden rules: 1. Ignore 2. Ignore 3. Goto 1 Yes. Unless their actual loss (based on parking charges) was actually £100.00 by you taking up space that could be used by another vehicle. On the basis you said it cost you £1.00 for 2 hours and you did, by parking where you did stop somebody else making use of that space you caused them a loss of £1.00 (from that somebody else) then that is the most they can claim. No need - your situation is no different to all the other PPC's threads you will read. Might be a different car park in a different town on a different day and even a different PPC but they are all the same sweet with a different wrapper. Don't bother wasting your time thinking about writing any letters just wait for the usual correspondence addressed to the Registered Keeper to arrive. Might have some scary red letters and wording that will suggest all manner of things will happen to you and your family. It won't. Blagton

But you choose to ignore the offer of appeal which would have been on the original PCN ? Post pictures (personal details removed) of the front and back of the PCN you received. You might also want to post pictures of the bay and signage - they may be non compliant however that would have been best established when you received the PCN and appealed on those grounds. Bailifs won't just appear from behind a bush - you must have had some correspondence of some sort ? Are you really suggesting that from receipt of the original PCN to the time you received a clamp nothing was received by you at all ? Alot seems to have happend since the early hours of yesterday morning yet not much in the months previous. You do but dealing with them at the time of the incident is the best way of doing it. Blagton

Somewhat of a different situation and not really connected to the OP of this thread. If you indeed did receive a PCN - choosing to ignore a PCN, subsequent correspondence (Notice to Owner and so on) and not either paying it or challenging it in the correct manner will land you in doodaa. I'd suggest you start a new thread and post pictures (with personal details removed) of the PCN you received - both back and front. Blagton

It would be far better if you explained how these PPC's operated to your family members and friends so, should they receive such threatning letters they won't be jittery, know where they stand legally and can safely ignore them. :confused: Tell you what - let them know I was driving, that will stop the letters to you and send me the £45 you have burning a hole in your wallet. I'll have a few beers with my mates on you - thanks very much Blagton.

:eek: :eek: Congratulations you've just thrown £60 down the drain and caused the PPC's to perhaps stay around just a little bit longer. I'm sure any worthy charity would have welcomed such a donation. I can hear the laughter from Excel from here. Your not Simon Renshaw-Smith in disguse are you ? Oh, forgot to say your wife owes me £100 for the message I typed earlier. If you don't pay I'm going to take you to court. Be warned this will not go away. Blagton.

But they do - it they are landowners they can paint whatever coloured lines they wish of any size or design - the point being that they have no meaning when it comes to enforcing parking regulations. Blagton

You might nip down to your local Planing Office and request copies to confirm where exactly the Road becomes unadopted and Private. Check with the Land Registry who owns what. Whilst your developer might be claiming to own certain parts they may not be landowners of the whole area. Do they own the land at "the other side" of the road - Who owns the boat yard and where does their land extend to ? etc. Who are UKPC operating with - have they put signs in areas they do not have the landowners approval ? Because thats the case - For Yellow Lines or other Markings used in Traffic Management they have to comply with certain regulations and to be enforceable be on Public Highways. On Private Land or an Unadopted/Private Roads they have no legal standing at all. UKPC cannot Fine you - they could issue you an Invoice but you are then entering into the same game as you do with PPC's operating in Shopping Car Parks and so on. Advise would be Ignore anything they send you. Assuming you accept you entered into this contract with UKPC it would seem you are not being charged to park and under Contract Law they could only claim for any losses. The Landowner have no losses therefore have nothing to claim. Whatever amount UKPC show on their Invoice doesn't matter. Blagton

I'd check exactly who owns what and what parts/roads are adopted or unadopted by the council. Don't take somebodies word for it. Yellow (or any other coloured lines on private land/unadopted roads mean nothing. Blagton

Delete the car reg details. The "Engineers License Number" appears to be valid on the SIA website with the name shown - how clear this should be I'm not too sure and whether the Company has to show SIA details perhaps somebody can confirm ? However the receipt fails to show the Companies registered address which is below. Report them to Companies House. IWATCH SECURITY SERVICES LTD PROSPECT HOUSE CHURCH GREEN WEST REDDITCH WORCESTERSHIRE B97 4BD Company No. 06846350 Blagton.

Lets see how knowledgebale they are then You might notice that your V5 states your information may be given to anybody who asks for it and which the DVLA consider "Just Reason" (and for PPC's they do). At £2.50 x however many requests the DVLA get per year the chances of anything changing are, well - you take a guess Blagton

Mmmm.....suspect you will have to chase the Landowner for the money through the court as the clampers may be slippy operators. Might need to use the Land Registry to obtain details. Needs SIA and so on however if they are a Ltd company needs Registered Address details, VAT numbers and so on shown. If not report them to Companies House for non compliance - won't get your Brothers money back but may result in them being fined for non complaince and all adds to his case. Blagton.

How did he pay specifically - cash, credit card, debit card ? Copies of the reciept with any personal details deleted (not the clampers) would be helpful however it may be a case of chasing through the Small Claims Court (Moneyclaim online) the clampers AND the landowners to get the money back. Hopefully others will come along with further help. Blagton.

Yep - wasting your time and the cost of a letter and postage. [1] Sit back and just wait for the well documented junk follow. [1] If you did want to write a letter then something to your local Trading Standards and MP telling them you consider the DVLA providing your details to PPC's is not "just reason" and in breach of the DPA and finally Aldi stores telling them you will use Lidl instead might be better use of your time. Blagton.

Quote from Al27 that you have just read: Parking Eye are well known scamsters Use of the Search facility on here will result in oodles of threads and messages with regard Parking Eye and other Private Parking Companies (PPC's). They all operate with the same business model - scare you into paying. The advice you receive for a Invoice from any of them is the same: 1. Ignore 2. Ignore 3. Goto 1 You (or the Registered Keeper) will receive a few letters from them initially, some perhaps with red borders and wording to worry you followed by a few more from a Debt Collection Agency threatening all manner of nasty things will happen to you (none of which will) then finaly, you might get a few more from some solicitor after which they will realise your not going to bite and move along to somebody else. You parked in a Free Car Park - you overstayed by an alledged period of time and denyed somebody else use of that free space at a cost of nothing therefore the potential loss to the landowner/operator was nothing. Under contract law they can only claim their losses which as we can see is - nothing ! Their claim for £70 or whatever they try it on for is meaningless. Aside from that the alledged contract was with the driver of the vehicle, the only means they have of contacting anybody to try and obtain money is by contacting the Registered Keeper (as the DVLA will happy take a few pounds from Parking Eye for this information) - if the Registered Keeper was not driving they have no obligation to say who was therefore Parking Eye have no one to chase - despite what they may suggest in correspondence they will send you. Blagton.

Wording ambiguous and to confuse - surely not The preamble to the Highways code has: "Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'. Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’." Rule 242 which is applied by the RTA 1988 is a "MUST NOT", that is if you disobey it you are committing a criminal offence however neither that Highway Code rule nor the RTA1988 Sec 22 say specifically what an obstruction may or may not be - open to individual cases and circumstances. Sec 22 states: "Leaving vehicles in dangerous positions If a person in charge of a vehicle causes or permits the vehicle or a trailer drawn by it to remain at rest on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence" Highway Code Rule 243, is a "Do Not" which failure to comply with the will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted which means that parking within 10 metres of a junction will not, in itself result in prosecution..... .....you may well (in all probability ?) though be causing a danger to other road users so go to Rule 242 and the RTA ! You could of course fight your corner if you did receive a ticket for such an alledged offence and it was not left in a dangerous position as by definition if thats the case you are not breaking Highway Code Rule 242/RTA sec 22. Blagton

Swap your deep breaths for a Glass of Red Wine - no need to panick ! "Micheal Sobell" is a solictor who rather than use his own name trades using the name very similar to a rather more reputable firm. You might also note on the letters you have that the phone number for Roxburghe is just one digit different to that you have from "Graham White" - strange that they are just a desk away from each other in the same room. Fear not Blagton

You might want to post the back of it so that those who know might be able to see if there are any aspects that fail to comply with requirements. Blagton

Err....err.....nothing I guess I'm just a little more familiar with the goings on over as it were. Promise I won't do it again

They will - don't panick That is part of the paper chain and shows you are getting close to the end - regretably all you have done is given them some hope you might pay if they hassle you enough and rattle you a little more. Should, on the remote, remote, remote, remote (not sure if I've used enough remotes) chance somebody should come and in any shape or form request payment tell them to "Get orf my land", if not you will call the Police and report them for demanding money with menace. Take a picture of them that will really shake them up. Anyway, that won't happen though so don't worry. A debt collection agency cannot send "a representative" round to collect this alledged debt nor can they send Bailifs round to collect your priceless Ming Vase as they may suggest. Your credit rating will not be effected. For anything like that to happen you would: 1. Have been taken to court 2. Lost the case 3. Even then refused to pay the court As [1] isn't going to happen then the rest doesn't really come into play. If they now have your phone number you may receive a follow up phone call. As mentioned they will probably see you now as a potential bite. Continue to ignore - you might receive a few more letters from a so called Solicitor suggesting all manner of things will happen - its there business plan to scare you into paying. As Kiptower says, sit back and continue to relax in the knowledge you are one step ahead of these crooks and know how they play the game. Blagton.

So you are suggesting a court would uphold a claim for £70 (or more as PPC will attempt to claim) for a loss of Zero under the Unfair Contracts Act ? You should apply for a job within a PPC's crack legal team A PPC wouldn't spend money going near court - as we know they just gve up after a while and spend the money on postage sending more Invoices out to the unwary. Blagton

I'd be interetsed to know where exactly "In Law" a free car park is defined - or when is a free car park not a free car park. A charge of £70 (or any other arbitary figure) for overstaing a stated time is complete doodaa and would be considered as unfair/unreasonable as per the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. As I understand things under contract law they could only claim for their loss with regard the overstay. They have no loss as no charge is made for parking - they might be denying somebody else to park there but they would park for free too so they still have no loss. If you pay £1 to park your car at £1 per hour and you overstayed by one hour their potential loss is £1. That is what they can claim. Claiming £70 would be unreasionale as per the above Act. Blagton.

Err...on the assumption (can be dangerous) it was a free car park what charge can they make ? They could only claim for their loss which for a free car park is...er...nothing ! Er..nope. The law isn't on their side which is why they won't go near court but if they did they wouldn't win. Blagton.

As your Husband would appear to be the RK then those are the ony details the PPC can obtain from the DVLA in the hope of extracting money from you. The alledged debt is with the driver who he is under no obligation to name. He has nothing to be concerned about. End of story. Blagton