Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

CharlieCC

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. CharlieCC
    Thank you. Had visions of bailiffs being appointed. So it seems still ignore.
  2. CharlieCC
    Hello all again. Two and a half years later and Equita are now harassing. Initial letter stating Beavis etc and asking for £200 prompted my reply like the parking prankster querying costs breakdown. Now received black and white letter 'final demand' for £150 from Head of Legal Services and stating that debt recovery officers have now been passed file for preparation for further action. Is this something to worry about or is general consensus to just hang fire?
  3. CharlieCC
    The next letter arrives from DR+ from their collections manager thanking me for the communication regards the parking charge notice! Their findings were that the site where the parking charge notice was issued was subject to terms and conditions. They have stated that we are past the POPLA access to independent appeals time limit! I take it that this is scaremongering again as they are quoting the PE vs Beavis & Wardley case at the end of their letter. Anyone any thoughts or advice on this? Many thanks Charlie
  4. CharlieCC
    Hi there all Here is an anonymised copy of the letter received. I suspect from the replies that it is a standard letter. :mad2: Best Charlie
  5. CharlieCC
    Hello again all! I wrote to Debt Recovery Plus stating that the alleged offence was denied. Another letter from them has arrived stating notice of intended court action and that to prevent this case being passed to the creditor's solicitor then the unpaid 'charge' should be paid by 5/9/14. Am I right to still ignore this, they go on to mention court fees and solicitor costs if the case goes to court? Thanks Charlie
  6. CharlieCC
    OK, thanks again
  7. CharlieCC
    Thanks again. Interestingly, there is no reason given why the charge has now risen to £150. Surely that should have been clarified? Best Charlie
  8. CharlieCC
    Hello all again, never heard anything from Parking Eye at all even though letter as detailed above was sent. On Friday 8th August a letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd demanding payment for an unpaid parking charge of £150.00. They state in their letter that Parking Eye had written to us recently about the unpaid parking charge (1 year ago plus to be exact ? recently indeed?). They have asked for payment no later than 21/08/14 or a recommendation will then be made to the creditor's solicitor that court action should be taken. I presume a second letter will be sent in respect of the second so called parking offence..we await developments. What now is the consensus on a sensible course of action in respect of this communication. Thanks again Charlie
  9. CharlieCC
    Thanks to you for reply. Will post response
  10. CharlieCC
    Hi there and thanks for replying, yes they do relate to a retail park. Charlie
  11. CharlieCC
    Hello all! I am new to the forums. I must apologize for starting another Parking Eye thread but would appreciate some advice. My wife, unfortunately, once whilst driving my car and secondly her own, has received 2 charges of overstaying on a car park. The car park in question is free of charge for 2 hours. The letters have since come, asking for £60 initially and then £100, one to me and another to her. I have followed advice on the forums to ignore, however a letter has arrived notifying of 'letter before county court' and stating that I have 14 days etc. Would the next approach be therefore to use the standard letter for POPLA/contract or, given the two charges, would the consensus be to pay up on the understanding that parking eye would be more likely to pursue us/me? Thanks, slightly confused and annoyed. Charlie

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...