Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

mttsy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About mttsy

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Oh, it may or may not be of any interest but the 'invoice' makes reference to "video evidence"; leading me to believe the entire process is probably completely automated, with the use of CCTV and registration plate imaging software. These companies are clearly making too much money if they have such toys
  2. Thanks for your replies. For those interested, here is a summary of my situation (pretty standard and uninteresting): - Retail Park, FREE car park - 3 hour limit (no return for ?? hours) - I parked in the morning (weekday) - I left early afternoon - 4.5 hours (1.5 hour over-stay) Now I'm not claiming I have done no wrong. I broke the 3 hour limit, fair and square. But a £50 (or £100) 'penalty' for 1.5 hours in a FREE car park during a non-peak period seems a little exessive. After researching the topic of Private Parking Companies (PPCs) I have come to object this whole business. I would like to consider myself as a moral and considerate person, but I do not believe that any for-profit company or private party should be entitled to £50-100 pounds as a result of my actions; which I don't belileve were particularly inconsiderate. I begrudge paying but I am unsure I have a particularly strong case in my favour. Examples of successful defences I have read about all seem to be oriented around the defendant having done no wrong (e.g. parking in their OWN residential parking bay, or were not the driver responsible), or the PPC having done something 'wrong' (e.g. incorrect/inadequate signage). What do you think? Would there be much of a defense? I think maybe the principle of 'damages' may be my only defense. £50 is surely not reasonable damgages for two hours (being generous) over-stay in a free car park?
  3. I have been reading up about Private Parking Companies (PPCs) on several forums (CAG, MSE, PePiPoo) for the last few days. There is an overwhelming body of support for the general advise of ignoring PPC letters until they go away. It is also nice to see testimony from numerous specific instances of people's success in acting upon this advice. Having recently received a first letter from Observices Parking Consultancy (OPC), I have paid particular attention to threads involving this PPC. There are two points/trends that I've noticed: 1 - none of the documented instances of successfully ignoring the letters involved OPC as the offending PPC. 2 - many, if not all, of the "help I'm being taken to court!" threads I've come across involve OPC. So the general impression I am getting is that OPC is not often successfully ignored. There are cases whereby OPC have successfully (or by default) been DEFEATED in court, but not simply IGNORED. I would love to hear some testimony of people successfully ignoring this PPC. A 99.9 percent chance of success in court is great. But a 90 percent chance (wild speculation!) of having to go to court at all (with OPC) may be enough to get people (me) to cough up the cash just to avoid the inconvenience. If it were any other PPC I am pretty confident I would just ignore. But I'm having real trouble finding any evidence that this tactic works against OPC. What do you say? 'Man up' and fight? Or pay up and flight?
×
×
  • Create New...