Total Parking Solutions

[ncf355]

Hi all,

 

I have received a "notice to owner" for a parking fine of £60 for an alleged parking offence in January

 

It is from Total Parking Solutions and aks me to pay by 14/04/08 or it will be increased to £100 (to cover "administration")

 

Now, they state in this farce ofa letter that "you are liable for the parking charge even if you were not the driver at the time"

 

I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that this is ball hooks, and that the contract that is alleged to be breached has to be taken on by thew person driving at the time before it can be breached (e.g: tom smith entered the car park at 11am, having read the clear "you will be fined X amount if you fail to display a valid ticket at anytime" and procceding to pay for 1 hour but parking for 1hr 30 minutes)?

 

 

In addition, on the back they quote that their are only 7 grounds of appeal due to the" road traffic act 1991(as amended) and the decrimnalised parking enforcement on private land law"

 

I was under the impression the road traffic act 1991 had no bearing on private parking fines, and if this is the case are they commiting an offence?

 

All input gratefully received

[pin1onu]

Hi all,

 

I have received a "notice to owner" for a parking fine of £60 for an alleged parking offence in January

 

It is from Total Parking Solutions and aks me to pay by 14/04/08 or it will be increased to £100 (to cover "administration")

 

Now, they state in this farce ofa letter that "you are liable for the parking charge even if you were not the driver at the time"

 

I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that this is ball hooks, and that the contract that is alleged to be breached has to be taken on by thew person driving at the time before it can be breached (e.g: tom smith entered the car park at 11am, having read the clear "you will be fined X amount if you fail to display a valid ticket at anytime" and procceding to pay for 1 hour but parking for 1hr 30 minutes)?

 

In addition, on the back they quote that their are only 7 grounds of appeal due to the" road traffic act 1991(as amended) and the decrimnalised parking enforcement on private land law"

 

I was under the impression the road traffic act 1991 had no bearing on private parking fines, and if this is the case are they commiting an offence?

 

All input gratefully received

 

You're 100% in your assertions.

 

They are committing offenses under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act by claiming in a document to have authority that they dont have. Its quite a common tactic from PPCs.

 

The RTA 1991 and DPE are for the public highway not private land.

 

Have a read of the Private Parking Guide in the stickies section. It sets out the legalities quite nicely and then have a read of the template letters for how to respond.

[ncf355]

Cheers Pin!

[Barnsley Boy]

ncf,

 

Just to add my voice to the throng - DON'T PAY.

 

Stand firm, you will continue to get nasty letters but stand firm, you know you are in the right.

[ncf355]

Hmm

 

Dont worry, no intention, and if they continue with the letters I'll sue them

 

Dont give in to the DCA's so it aint gonna be any different for this bunch of pond ****

[rJJx24]

Hi guys,

 

Saw you talking about TotalParking. Was wondering if you could help?

 

I was recently parked in a hospital car park (which is, disgustingly, pay and display).

 

I paid for 2 hours' worth as I was only going in to pick up some medication. It's not like I wanted to hang around. Anyway, I waited to get the prescription, when the doctor hauled me in for an examination, then got a 2nd opinion from the Senior Doctor, who then referred it up to the Head Consultant Surgeon for a 3rd opinion!

 

I am glad they did now, except for the fact I overstayed my 2 hours and got a ticket from 'Total Parking Solutions'. I would not normally do a 'sob story' and have previously successfully challenged a Council pcn at the Tribunal on much more objective grounds. But this seems very unfair!

 

My current thinking was to pay then the extra £2 (their actual loss), via the website. Then any delays by them may be barred by the Stuart v Stour Valley concept.

 

I was going to follow this with the 'sob' letter, although I imagine it will go on deaf ears. ANY help anyone has would be great, as I have never dealt with a Private Parking Company before, although I have been involved in other litigation.

 

Thanks.

[lamma]

Ignore them, keep all their paper. job done.

[letshelp]

Any sob story will be ignored so return the favour and ignore them.

regards

[mistral_blue]

Hi guys and girls,

 

Hoping for a little advice if I may. I've done some googling and reading of this and other threads on the forum and think the IGNORE tactic may be suitable but I'd just like some other opinions if possible please? We've got 9wk old twins to deal with at the moment, so not masses of free time to look into things, so I'd appreciate any help with the above!

 

We recently received a ticket from Total Parking Solutions after a stay in Swindon Halfords car park recently

 

The facts:

 

Reason for issue - "Left the premises" (which we indeed did do, although we returned and shopped in both Halfords and the Range, which the car park serves) before returning to our vehicle

 

Mitigation - we have receipts to prove that we shopped in the above stores (however, they do show from the times that we stayed longer than we should have - they have recently changed the limit from 2h to 90 mins which we failed to notice on the signs way above our heads!)

 

We have since returned and taken photos of the signs and it does say in small print that you must not leave the premises (which I think is frankly ridiculous). The car park is free (not pay and display) and the rules have changed recently as it hasn't always been like this.

 

The question: Is the above enforceable? I know we were longer than we should have been due to the kids, but the reason for ticket issue was us having "Left the premises". This really infuriates me as basically they must have parking Nazis sat watching... That said, how do they prove it, other than through CCTV perhaps? As I mentioned previously, I have proof that we shopped there, although unfortunately that then drops us in it over the times (unless I black them out!). From the bits I have read, you have to effectively agree to the 'contract' for them to be able to fine you, otherwise it's only if you have done 'damage while on private land'.

 

In summary: Part of me just thinks I should pay up the £60 (we're past the £40 early payment phase) but the militant part of me is absolutely furious at the audacity and sheer unfairness of the system. I could understand if we'd left the vehicle there all day and not used the stores the car park serves, but with such pathetic and unclear signs and such a questionable offence of 'leaving the premises', I am equally just thinking of going down the IGNORE - Prove it route - I am prepared to go to court, if it is winnable, if not, I'll just pay up and save the hassle!

 

Answers and advice on a postcard please...

 

Cheers!

 

MB

[Al27]

There is no system - it's just a private company who give out unenforceable invoices and send out junkmail.

 

Just ignore.

[afcwben]

in fact answer in one word Ignore!

[LeeWat]

Hi all;

 

I'm in the same boat! Am now on our second letter from TPS - which claims that failure to pay could affect our credit rating. In short, overstayed 5 minutes in a car park beyond the 90 minutes free parking after spending over 100 quid in store...so feel highly aggreived as was a genuine customer and not abusing the free parking per se. The letter is addressed to my wife as the registered keeper, but she wasnt even in the country at the time and the photos from entry/exit gates dont show the driver (me).

 

I know that all will probably say that the advice remains the same - IGNORE - but as the letters come in, I just need reassurance that ignoring remains the best advice....?

[DBC]

failure to pay will not affect your credit rating. For that to happen the case would have to go to court (very unlikely) you lose (very, very unlikely) and then you fail to pay whatever the judge orders within 28 days. This is yet another example of a parking company / debt collection agency being "economical with the truth" (to put it politely). Just ignore these clowns.

[lamma]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/164651-problems-ppcs-face.htm

[LeeWat]

Thanks for the replies guys - I know how irritating it can be when someone pops up on a forum and asks questions that have been asked a hundred times before - but receiving these letters caused me to seek a reassurance and a virtual 'arm round the shoulder', so to speak.

 

From reading the link, it seems that these letters are tantamount to harrassment. I'm not sure if this is a normal reaction, but my anger in this is not directed at TPS, as I see them as doing whatever it is they do to earn money - but rather, I am angrier at the retailer (Pets at Home) for thinking that this is somehow an acceptable way to treat a customer who has just spent a considerable sum on their premises. As a consequence they have lost a regular, repeat customer who will now purchase the product online.

 

Again, Thanks for the replies.

[Al27]

It will probably be the landlord of the retail park. But tell Pets At Home what you think of them anyway.

 

I'm surprised you're not angry at TPS. Their business model is speculative invoicing for amounts they have no legal right to. It's no different from postal cons where you have to send a cheque off to claim a prize, or emails from Nigerians wanting your bank account details.

[brassnecked]

Ignore them, these people and other ppcs also invoice courier companies when the vans "Overstay" due to their making deliveries, especially where there is remote camera enforcement so are usually, ignored

 

I don't think they would like the possible mauling in court if the likes of UPS DHL, Parcelforce defended a claim.

[Al27]

Yep, PPCs pick their victims very carefully.

 

All blows up in their face though when they the RK wasn't the driver though. Must kick themselves at having thrown £25 down the drain when a "I was not the driver" defence comes back.

[Laxed]

Until somebody takes on the DVLA for unlawfully providing our data to these cowboys,ignore them! I have on at least four occasions. I think next time I might take the DVLAto court for allowing my data to be used for the purpose of harrassment. Very stange that these companies feel the have the right to harrrass their customers after taking their money.

[Cardiff Devil]

The DVLA would claim in their defence that they only release keeper details to BPA member organisations.

[sameagle]

Then they would be lying!

 

They will release the data to anybody who has "good cause" - they released some to me.

[Redrow]

Guys, I was recently taken to court by these cowboys and made to pay for 6 tickets I had ignored. The same day there was 2 other people before me both were made to pay cost. The judge would not accept that I didn't know who was driving my car and said that since I was the only person insured to drive my car that would be likely that was me driving it. Not sure what is going on but I thought these tickets were unenforceable? Can some one please let me know what is going on?

[DBC]

Could you please tell what court this took place at and the date when it took place. Or you could tell us which parking company you work for!

[afcwben]

Guys, I was recently taken to court by these cowboys and made to pay for 6 tickets I had ignored. The same day there was 2 other people before me both were made to pay cost. The judge would not accept that I didn't know who was driving my car and said that since I was the only person insured to drive my car that would be likely that was me driving it. Not sure what is going on but I thought these tickets were unenforceable? Can some one please let me know what is going on?

 

What is going on? well as this is your 1st post can I suggest you search on this forum for Perky it will give you all the answers you need

[honeybee13]

Guys, how is it these messages only ever appear from people who've never posted on the forum before and then take issue with advice they've never sought here?

 

My best, HB