UKPC parking charge

[davida3544]

Hi All

 

My wife left her car in Ashton Moss car park (Manchester) and parked across the white lines. The car park is free. She received a parking fine of £40 for this that has now been increased to £80 after we have followed the advise given on this site and asked for evidence of the offence against the owner/keeper.

 

We have now received a final reminder that states the liability for the parking charge lies with the owner/keeper and if payment is not made then the debt will be forwarded to a debt recovery agency.

 

The reason I am posting this is for any words of advise or moral support anyone could offer.

 

Cheers

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

In your shoes I would work through the template letters in the sticky at the top of the forum.

 

But I would say that wouldn't I?

[Kef9]

Hi mate. Im exactly in the same boat as you. Check out the forum below.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/63235-ukpc-parking-fine-8.html

 

STAY STRONG!!

[Barnsley Boy]

Davida,

 

Plenty of advice here regarding the whole Private Parking Companies ticketing thing. It is a [problem]. Use Bernie's template letters and you will be fine.

 

To set your mind at rest do a search on this forum "UKPC" - there are lots of threads. You will find lots of threats of legal action but not a single court case. They and their tame debt collection agencies have more BS than the average mushroom farm but they are all bark and no bite.

 

Do not be concerned.

[todd58]

im in the same boat will keep u posted ,im only at the recieved invoice stage at the moment

[davida3544]

Hi

 

Lhanks for the advise. I have now recieved a letter from their debt collectors and i phoned to tell them the debt was in dispute. The lady who answered seemed very disinterested and asked for it in writing which I have now done.

 

Will keep you posted.

[Barnsley Boy]

Hi

 

Lhanks for the advise. I have now recieved a letter from their debt collectors and i phoned to tell them the debt was in dispute. The lady who answered seemed very disinterested and asked for it in writing which I have now done.

 

Will keep you posted.

 

Davida,

 

I would advise against phoning this people - an absolute waste of time qand money. The only reason for contacting them at all is to strengthen your case. This is best achieved by writing, the copy letters being a matter of record.

 

Wasn't a premium line was it?

[davida3544]

Barnsley Boy,

 

The company are Hunter Forrest & Co has anybody heard of them? It wasnt a premium line so hopfully no damage done.

 

Thannk again.

[Barnsley Boy]

Barnsley Boy,

 

The company are Hunter Forrest & Co has anybody heard of them? It wasnt a premium line so hopfully no damage done.

 

Thannk again.

 

Hunter Forrest well known here. They are a debt collection agency usually used as UKPC's "attacks dogs". Reading the accounts they are somewhat toothless for attack dogs - more labrador puppies than full grown rottweilers, altough they do bark alot. Remember that, despite what they may claim, debt collectors have no powers whatsoever.

[bikerider1]

hi barnsley boy,

you seem to be well informed about the ukpc parking charges re:mcdonalds

ive been charged for staying too long at mcd's at tankersley, jct 36 m1

just had the second letter through the charge is now up to £100! they are saying "can be registered as debt against me" "additional costs" and "credit rating" etc

having read many posts, is your advice to ignore all letters or reply with a "set" legal reply disputing??

any "professional" advice would be very welcome!

thanks

[DBC]

The only way debt can be registered against you is if the case goes to court (very unlikely), you lose (very, very unlikely) and then you refuse to pay whatever the judge orders within 28 days. This is such a remote possibility that it's not worth worrying about. In other words just ignore their silly letters.

[Kef9]

The only way debt can be registered against you is if the case goes to court (very unlikely), you lose (very, very unlikely) and then you refuse to pay whatever the judge orders within 28 days. This is such a remote possibility that it's not worth worrying about. In other words just ignore their silly letters.

 

Yes, I agree 100%. If you look back through the posts I had this a few years ago. They can't do anything!

 

I will never pay a private parking charge ever.

[Bang!]

These things are scams. They rely upon sending the registered keeper of the car a bill, when if they could charge anything based on their notices on the wall, the contract for this fee would be with the driver.

 

So even if its videoed, they don't know if the woman parking badly is the registered keeper, and basically just hope they can scare someone into paying.

 

This only applies to private parking "fines" and not government issued parking tickets.

[bikerider1]

many thanks everyone...i'll let you know what happens next!

i can see what everyone is saying is correct, its just a bit worrying as you dont want anything to happen that affects you in the future!?

thanks

[DBC]

So I take it you work for UK parking Patrol. What do you do when you don't know the identity of the driver?

[TONY216]

Many forums/sites advise people to ignore tickets,

some advise them to send standard letters to deny liability for the ticket and other outrageous defences to avoid paying a charge

 

And quite rightly too because there is no payment to avoid.

 

A £60 parking charge is a very minor issue and when cases are presented to a court

the claimant has to prove the case on the balance of probabilities (ie 51%)

 

You can buy lots of smarties with £60.

 

- A court could see defendants being obstructive as having something to hide ..

If a person receives a ticket and they believe it to be incorrect a reasonable person would state the reasons why at the first possible opportunity ...

 

It don't matter what the reason is, it is 'always' rejected.

 

If a case progresses to court after an appeal has been heard and rejected then the court will decide

but the court will see all parties have attempted to resolve issues fairly and amicably and resorted to legal action as a last resort.

(Under Civil Procedure Rules parties are specifically instructed to only use the court system as a last resort).

 

The court will see there is no appeals process dingbat. All the court will see is an attempt to get money by issuing a penalty charge, even bigger dingbat.

 

If a case goes to court and a defendant has not appealed, there is no appeal not responded to letters sensible or sent obstructive defencesthat would be silly and a waste of a stamp

the court could draw the conclusion that a person has something to hide for going to extraordinary lengths to avoid a minor parking charge. No, the court 'will' draw the conclusion the other dingbats at the office have not claimed a 'true estimate of cost' as in breach of contract, of which the courts have already thrown out, Google, you will find it.

 

Under section 143 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 The road traffic act has nothing what so ever to do with private parking, and it's none of your business if the driver has insurance or not.

- The a keeper should know at all times who is driving a vehicle and to ensure they are insured,

if a keeper allows a vehicle to be driven without insurance they are guilty of a criminal offence - By stating many people have access to a vehicle and as a result the defendant can not state who had it any one given date/time then they are confirming they did not know who was driving and therefore cannot be certain the vehicle was insured.

 

The exact wording is :

Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks

Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

(a)A person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

 

If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence. But not to a ppc he isn't.

 

On the balance of probabilities it is very unusual for a person just to leave their car keys for anyone to drive it and therefore not know who is driving it, we are yet to have a case where a judge has considered this to be 'normal' (with possible exception of a vehicle which has an ANY DRIVER clause on the insurance certificate/schedule). You have yet to see a case that was defended and you won.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Conniff
Just some things needed clarification

[SURFBOY]

Many forums/sites advise people to ignore tickets, some advise them to send standard letters to deny liability for the ticket and other outrageous defences to avoid paying a charge

A £60 parking charge is a very minor issue and when cases are presented to a court the claimant has to prove the case on the balance of probabilities (ie 51%) - A court could see defendants being obstructive as having something to hide .. If a person receives a ticket and they believe it to be incorrect a reasonable person would state the reasons why at the first possible opportunity ... If a case progresses to court after an appeal has been heard and rejected then the court will decide but the court will see all parties have attempted to resolve issues fairly and amicably and resorted to legal action as a last resort. (Under Civil Procedure Rules parties are specifically instructed to only use the court system as a last resort).

If a case goes to court and a defendant has not appealed, not responded to letters or sent obstructive defences the court could draw the conclusion that a person has something to hide for going to extraordinary lengths to avoid a minor parking charge.

Under section 143 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 - The a keeper should know at all times who is driving a vehicle and to ensure they are insured, if a keeper allows a vehicle to be driven without insurance they are guilty of a criminal offence - By stating many people have access to a vehicle and as a result the defendant can not state who had it any one given date/time then they are confirming they did not know who was driving and therefore cannot be certain the vehicle was insured.

The exact wording is :

Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks

Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

(a)A person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

On the balance of probabilities it is very unusual for a person just to leave their car keys for anyone to drive it and therefore not know who is driving it, we are yet to have a case where a judge has considered this to be 'normal' (with possible exception of a vehicle which has an ANY DRIVER clause on the insurance certificate/schedule).

 

Thanks for all that.

BUT........Can you prove that your charges are fair and are not actualy a PENALTY?

If so, are you prepared to prove it on this forum?

In other words put your money where your mouth is .

Does the breach of contract actualy cost you what you say it does ? Please provide proof!

[SURFBOY]

" a £60 parking charge is a very minor issue" .

To you it may be, but to everyone else it is an outrage, £60 just for parking your car!

If you think £60 for parking is nothing then you are welcome to park on my drive for £60! as often as you want!

[Tony P]

I hasten to state he is no relation!

 

Anyone know what happened to the previous 215 ?

I appear to have missed them all.

[TONY216]

Sorry Guys

But there seems to be a misunderstanding. I don’t work for UKPC or any other parking company. All I am saying is this. There are signs of warning were ever you go. If you take no notice of a warning sign then you must take the consequences. I myself have had a parking charge in the past and I have held my hands up and paid because it was my fault.

[dx100uk]

Parking tickets and charges, especially those issued on private land are hot topics for debate

often fuelled by armchair lawyers who use various media such as the internet as their soapbox

- As with many aspects of the internet this advice is very often ill founded

and the people giving it are not legally qualified in any way and very often hide behind aliases and appear on many forums under multiple identities.

 

Charges issued by UK Parking Control are based on agreement to pay a set parking charge,

in the majority of cases this is £90 reduced to £45 if paid within 14-days

- for parking charges not paid and referred for legal collection the charge increases to £135 to cover additional administrative expenses

to enforce the debt plus legal costs (these are clearly defined at the time the contract is made).

 

When a ticket is issued on behalf of UK Parking Control we ensure that photographic/CCTV evidence is taken thereby showing the vehicle parked in clear view of a sign

and therefore by the actions of parking you are deemed to have accepted all conditions on display.

 

UK Parking Control are one of the few companies that rigoursly pursue unpaid parking charges via the courts.

We give the defendant every opportunity to appeal or pay the parking charge notice before commencing court action.

 

The statement that parking companies never win cases is a total myth and we produce a small sample of cases taken to court by UK Parking Control

with the company and defendant present,

 

many different avoidance defences were used but the court was satisfied that the parking charges were issued correctly,

the signage clear and of a type that is bound to have been seen by a reasonable person and more importantly that our parking charges were fair.

 

Unfortunately many of the cases taken to court have been led into the belief that parking charges were not enforceable

and by defending a case it would either be not pursued or be thrown out

- this advice has come from various internet/advice forums and has resulted in an original charge of £60 costing the defendant at least 3-times that amount,

a County Court Judgement being issued (which could make getting credit very difficult for up to 6years)

and time/money spent by a defendant preparing a defence and attending court.

 

 

they are not parking charges - they are speculative invoices.

 

SHOW US all the cases you have 'WON' in court ....case number please and the courts concerned.

 

there is no 'agreement' by the client to pay you 'speculative invoices' - esp as they have already paid to park but dont want a £90 charge for an extra 10mins.

 

trouble with armchair lawyers - they tend to know a wee bit more than desparate parking employees that are losing money hand overfist because of these forums.

 

dx

[crem]

I hasten to state he is no relation!

 

Anyone know what happened to the previous 215 ?

I appear to have missed them all.

 

Tony P, you should know by now that PPCs NEVER start with a small number. They always prefer to think of a number, double it, then add a couple more for good measure. Bearing that in mind, I think 216 is a relatively small number in PPC terms

[dx100uk]

Many forums/sites advise people to ignore tickets,

some advise them to send standard letters to deny liability for the ticket and other outrageous defences to avoid paying a charge

 

A £60 parking charge is a very minor issue and when cases are presented to a court

the claimant has to prove the case on the balance of probabilities (ie 51%)

 

- A court could see defendants being obstructive as having something to hide ..

If a person receives a ticket and they believe it to be incorrect a reasonable person would state the reasons why at the first possible opportunity ...

 

If a case progresses to court after an appeal has been heard and rejected then the court will decide

but the court will see all parties have attempted to resolve issues fairly and amicably and resorted to legal action as a last resort.

(Under Civil Procedure Rules parties are specifically instructed to only use the court system as a last resort).

 

If a case goes to court and a defendant has not appealed, not responded to letters or sent obstructive defences

the court could draw the conclusion that a person has something to hide for going to extraordinary lengths to avoid a minor parking charge.

 

Under section 143 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988

- The a keeper should know at all times who is driving a vehicle and to ensure they are insured,

if a keeper allows a vehicle to be driven without insurance they are guilty of a criminal offence - By stating many people have access to a vehicle and as a result the defendant can not state who had it any one given date/time then they are confirming they did not know who was driving and therefore cannot be certain the vehicle was insured.

 

The exact wording is :

Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks

Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

(a)A person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

 

If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

 

On the balance of probabilities it is very unusual for a person just to leave their car keys for anyone to drive it and therefore not know who is driving it, we are yet to have a case where a judge has considered this to be 'normal' (with possible exception of a vehicle which has an ANY DRIVER clause on the insurance certificate/schedule).

 

 

whats all this got to do with a speculative invoice?

 

more legalise to try and spoof readers into coughing up when they should IGNORE speculative invoices.

 

i'm mined to remove the last 2 posts

 

but you are easy to blow out the water.

 

 

i like the bit about them owing you £60 - and that they try and avoid the issue by using silly letters from forums or ignoring the begging invoices & having somethime to hide

 

what a bit like UKPC - hiding that no-one owes you anything in first place eh!

 

dx

[dx100uk]

Sorry Guys

But there seems to be a misunderstanding. I don’t work for UKPC or any other parking company. All I am saying is this. There are signs of warning were ever you go. If you take no notice of a warning sign then you must take the consequences. I myself have had a parking charge in the past and I have held my hands up and paid because it was my fault.

 

 

you mean a speculative invoice ?

 

dx

[crem]

I myself have had a parking charge in the past and I have held my hands up and paid because it was my fault.

 

Should have come to the forum then and not been dumb enough to send the fraudsters money for nowt.