This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

A defendant must take reasonable steps. Nobody else is under any such duty. So if the keeper knows himself not to be the defendant he is not a party to the contract, to the case and indeed is nothing to do with the matter at hand then it cannot rightly be said that he has any obligations to assist any purported claimant. Particularly so when the keeper knows that the claimant's case is flawed in law. The purported claimant must identify the defendant himself. He can ask all he likes for the assistance of any party but that party is absolutely not under any obligation whatsoever in law to assist. You're misquoting the point of the case and doing so to the detriment of users here. Given that you are a PPC associate of some description your presence here mis-quoting law could easily be construed as a mis-representation per S2 Fraud Act 2006. Particularly if you were to give the said advice to someone who had been sent a invoice from a firm which you are associated with. I suggest you tread lightly having been given suitable advice. P

You cannot compel someone, but you can have a lot of fun suing them for harassment if they pester you beyond your challenge. You can't 'freeze' it, such an instrument doesn't exist, but you can, if it seems the inside of a courtroom, dispute the claim figure (from a very strong position) if it is comprised of administrative inflations beyond the point of your challenge. Term of the contract or not, what legitemate purpose would these inflations have beyond the point of challenge (the challenge is the refusal to pay and the demand that the PPC initiate a claim).? They have no point beyond intimidating and that is not stood for. Within a contract charges to a point may be added for debt collection provided they are a specific term of the contract. If they are stated, fine, if not they need to be 'reasonable'.

200,000 untrained laypersons who have taken very bad advice and aren't fully aware of the risks. I'm shocked, having written the original guide, that this, frankly, disgraceful advice has come from it.

Nonesense. Its in your best interests to outline the defence at the earliest possible opportunity, particularly when the people claiming money have no right to it. It keeps costs to zero and its nothing to do with courtesy. Its about putting people who operate outside the bounds of the law that you know the game, you know the rules and that you won't be bullied.

This is utter nonsense. Ignoring them is unwise to the extreme. Of course you don't know of an instance where ignoring PPCs has resulted in a grim outcome. Not the stuff people come to say. Ignoring the PPCs is foolish, irresponsible and completely the WRONG thing to do. Contacting them and outlining a proper and valid defence based on the circumstances is wise as it does limit the claim (there can be no admin fees for actions taken to recover a debt the PPC have been told is not owed). The onus is on the PPC to take action or cease their actions. You can put them on notice re harassment and then complain if any associated offences have been committed quite validly. Ignoring them means that if you are that one person who is taken to court you will be playing catch up and the Judge will take a dim view of someone who has made no effort to engage the alleged creditor. Its a disadvantage that nobody here has to endure and those advising silence are foolish and, frankly, showing a clear lack of training. Those of you in two minds - for God's sake think about the situation, think about how far it might go and ask yourself - "Do I want to be the one guy who is sued who hasn't prepared a defence, who hasn't put the PPC on notice and who has made no effort to dispute the alleged debt or propose a defence?" If the answer is yes then you're making work for yourself later if its your number that comes up.

If he's not VAT registered I'd suggest you report this chap to HMRC.

Yes, the advice you've had is, frankly, pants. You need to rethink your choice of solicitor. You can recover these funds for a multitude of reasons. Firstly the alleged debts were unlawful, so you owed no debt. When they clamped you for owing debt they did so unlawfully because you did not owe debt and as such had not breached the T&Cs. That said (and a note to people who are still, stupidly, in my opinion, telling people to stay silent) it would have done to tell Simpleton Parking that you owed them nothing. In any event, clamping is a remedy for tresspass. If the landowner at sites 1 and 2 were different to the landowner at site 3 then I'd contend you couldn't trespass on site 3 on the basis of having any alleged outstanding breaches of contract at the previous. Simpleton are taking the mick. You do have cause of action to recover the funds in full.

I, again, have to disagree. Ignoring people who are ultimately threatening to take you to court is not clever. You need to formulate your case, put it to them and chellenge them to sue you or leave you alone. One of these people you keep telling to ignore these things is going to get a summons and will be at a disadvantage from the start for having not put their position forward. That this is the prevailing advice is worrying and grim.

I'm going to have to disagree. Ignoring people who threaten you with legal sanctions, however toothless they may be preceived to be, can not be wise. The one person who ignored the letters and is summoned to court is going to look like they're trying to dodge debt and give the upper hand to the PPC. I suggest formulating a case, putting it to them and telling them to sue or cease.

Sorry but again I have to say I think you're getting bad advice. While it is very very unlikely that your case will end up in court, my own personal opinion is that there is always a merit in replying and outloning the defence in the event that matters should go that far. If something ends up in court the defendant with the strongest position will be the one who has outlined his case at the earliest opportunity and made his dispute clear. This makes claiming costs (it does happen on the small claims track) easier and more likely to succeed. It alsoadds weight to any argument you make to the judge as you demonstrate that you have made every effort to resolve matters by providing a basis for refusal. If you're the keeper then the PPC is going t write to you. They're going to tell you that your vehicle was parked in the circumstances you described above. They're going to ask for £X. Your reply should be that you are the registered keeper. You understand that their allegation is that the driver has entered a contract with them and that they make a further allegation that the driver has breached the same as detailed above. You should confirm for them that you were categorically not the driver on the day in question and that there is no obligation upon you to provide them with the details of whoever was drivng (any suggesion that you are under such an obligation in these circumstances is completely and absolutely wrong in fact and law). You may care to make a point that you are aware that the keeper cannot, in law, in such circumstances, be vicariously lible and that any suggestion to the contrary will be considered to be a misrepresentation per the fraud act and will be treated as an attempt to defraud. You should tell them that you consider the matter closed and that you are not prepared to enter into further correspondence about this. You should tell them that this is your final answer and that they have no further cause to contact you save to confirm their closure of the matter or issue county court papers. It would also do to remind them that their further efforts to contact you will be considered to be harassment and that you will take action in such an event. As for the rest? Let me know how they respond. P

Sorry but that's bad advice and just plain wrong. If you tell an alleged creditor that you don't think you owe them anything, qualify that statement and tell them to sue you or drop it then there's no option. You have made your position clear and any communication save a summons or a letter saying 'we're dropping this' is harassment per the act. What possible justification can the PPC have for contacting you after you've flat out refused to pay an told them that their only recourse is through the court? The short answer is that it cannot be justified. The only purpose another letter serves is to harass you in order to apply pressure and illicit payment. This is unlawful per a number of other regulations but most seriously Section 1 of the Protection From harassment Act 1997 outlines what will constitute harassment and Section 3 provides the civil remedy. You can read the act here - Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40)

I still maintain that this is silly scaremongering. You're going to end up with no-one here.

So can you get me a look at this PPC database?

If there is such a website its use would be criminal per the DPA. I'd go in with anyone to shut that down through the Courts and via the ICO were someone to point me in the right direction.

You know, given the circumstances, I'd say you all have cause for action in harassment. An action by several of you claiming four figures in damages each, you would sue both the factors and the PPC. If enough of you did it then you would scare the living daylights out of the factors (who won't know what hit them) and you'd give Central Ticketing (who are an amateuring band at best) something to think about. If your bollard has been raised your land has been trespassed and you have been deprived of its use. You would have an action against the factors and the PPC for this also. PJ

A well written letter. I'm watching this with interest.

We get all that. But what were the circumstances in which a PPC used information gleaned from here in a court case? As I said, there are legal issues with doing that, depending on the circumstances. Can you please elaborate?

I'm getting a little bothered by the prevailing advice here. Ignoring the letters, notices etc. I appreciate that by ignoring the vultures you simply run the thin risk that they take you to court and never have to talk to them. However, I think there are virtues to replying and I don't want to think that there is no opposition to the prevailing 'company line'. My opinion is that if you get one of these invoices/letters you should reply. This is why - If you do reply then you're giving due notice to the PPC tht you are not liable and telling them why. If worded properly this is a refusal, it must not be an appeal. The merits are that by outlining your defence you can prohibit the parking company from contacting you further. You can complain about any breaches of regulations and legislation. You may then CC a copy to the OFT, the BPA, the ICO and the DVLA. If they do contact you further you then have recourse to legal remedies. On the other hand if they do sue you, you will have a very good argument for costs on the grounds that you made your position explicitly clear from the outset and that they chose to initiate vexatious litigation. I have never liked 'bury your head in the sand' as an approach and I would advocate it to no-one. On a more practical note, if everyone who got an invoice wrote to the PPC then they would be swamped with mail and their processes would struggle to cope. My personal opinion is that this nonsense about ignoring it is bad advice that weakens and individual's position later if he needs to defend it and which allows the parking company to send letters off until the cows come home. Send them back, put them on notice, clog up their mailboxes. You owe it to yourselves and the next person to be as much of a pain for them as is possible. These arguments about 'I won't say who the driver was' and 'I don't want to contact them in case I'm held to what I say' are silly arguments which lose their merit of the letter that goes off it well written and conveys that which needs to be conveyed.

Can you tell me the circumstances? I think there'd be serious issues with using anything gleaned from here. P

Harsh. But fair.

Sorry but I still think you've all gone a bit overboard and a bit 'scaremonger' on this issue. To identify you the PPC need- Ticket/Invoice number Vehicle Index Name Address Location of incident Date of incident Time of incident (in order of usefulness to the PPC, as I see it) Beyond having some of this there's no massive danger of identification. Common sense is needed, yes, but a huge scaremongering is not needed. This will put people off asking for advice. Yes the PPCs trawl the place and read threads but I'd have to ask - so what? I'm yet to hear of a case where I thought the PPC were entitled to the funds they were asking for. Worst case scenario - they do identify someone - that person's defence is as solid as it was before their identity was known. I appreciate the 'don't say who was driving' argument and I see some merit in it, but not a lot at all. If a defendant were asked by the DJ then what do you suppose they'd do? They couldn't lie and they couldn't well refuse to say. I remember that case Parky made issue of in Oldham and one of the most critical things the Judge made note of was the defendant making an issue of not saying who was driving. There really is no mileage to this, in my opinion. If you were driving, so what? The issue of due notice, fair terms, penalties and so on all kill the claim before liability is established. So I'd say people need to take common sense steps to protect their identity, but this isn't something that people need to be scared of. If people are too frightenned to talk here then the place loses its purpose and the PPCs have won. Was their goal really to find people and gather evidence for individual cases? I doubt it, more like their intent was to create a culture of fear and reduce confidence. You're almost doing their job for them, I'd say. P

Please do and you're welcome.