Parking ticket

[peter123]

Sent the standard letter

 

 

In the meantime I absolutely deny your claim that the amount claimed, or any amount at all, is due to you from my company.

 

signed my name, company.>>

 

 

I have been restating my position but now xx are saying that was the registered owner they are "entitled to assume that you were driving the vehicle on the day in question". therefore we are entitled to persue you for payment blah blah..."

 

The letter is addressed to my company with sir/madam though.

 

 

I was not driving the vehicle and we do not know who it was on the day the overstay occured but it might have been a care outlook employee, then again there is a car wash in there so it might have been given a clean as the photo show a very shiny car coming out! No receipt from accounts though so what should I respond with???

Edited May 12, 2008 by peter123

[Geronimoman]

"Entitled to assume that you were driving the vehicle on the day in question". The nerve of them. They are of course entitled to assume no such thing. If they want to take it further they would have to provide clear evidence that the RK was driving, which of course they will not be able to do. It would be tempting to reply with "I am entitled to assume that you are talking out of your rear end".

[lamma]

I would ignore them from here on out as they have obviously screwed up big time with statement. If pressed in future you may want to refer them to Arkell v. Pressdram

[peter123]

Ok thanks for the reply

[lamma]

you have no obligation whatsoever to tell a PPC who was driving despite anything they may say on their paperwork, their website or their trolling posts on here.

this is not a S172 request after all... its an invoice (begging letter).

[peter123]

I just have a feeling they will keep writing to me!!!!

[lamma]

they probably will.. so what !!! it is meaningless drivel. let them spend their time and money sending useless letters !!!

[peter123]

Ok sounds good to me.

 

Can I take them for harassment then??

[lamma]

let them keep digging themselves into a hole and when the letters dry up review them. There are many statutes regularly broken by PPCs...

[peter123]

I dont believe it! I have just recieved a letter from xx collections threatening legal proceedings and a bailiff may attend!

Edited May 12, 2008 by peter123

[lamma]

sounds like fairly usual bogus demands and lies. the real situation is well documented here.

 

keep the letter, they are still digging themselves into that hole

[peter123]

Thanks, I didnt know they could pass the details onto another company in light of my dispute? Also they didnt even give me the 14 days they said they would!!!

 

On the data protection they are listed as:

 

Purpose 5

 

Crime Prevention and Prosecution of Offenders

Purpose Description:

Crime prevention and detection and the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.

Data Controllers further description of Purpose:

INCLUDES USE OF CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION FOR THE MONITORING AND COLLECTION

OF SOUND AND/OR VISUAL IMAGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING THE SECURITY OF

PREMISES, FOR PREVENTING CRIME AND INVESTIGATING CRIME.

 

 

 

From what I've read on the forums I cant see how any criminal activity has occured here?

[Barnsley Boy]

Agreed, does rather sound like same old, same old. No particular need to reply.

 

Perhaps we should all save the stamps for complaints to MPs, AA, RAC, DVLA, OFT, TS, etc.

[pin1onu]

Thanks, I didnt know they could pass the details onto another company in light of my dispute? Also they didnt even give me the 14 days they said they would!!!

They shouldn't be passing your details on if you've disputed the debt. Thats a breach of the OFT guidelines at the very least.

[peter123]

I have noticed all letters are written to my company, with sir/madam. I am reoplying with my name (as the director I am writing on behalf of the company). Is this an issue and should I be writing "I".

[pin1onu]

I have noticed all letters are written to my company, with sir/madam. I am reoplying with my name (as the director I am writing on behalf of the company). Is this an issue and should I be writing "I".

I would be inclined to change it to prevent any confusion to our/we. This puts it in the third person and makes it clear that it is not referring to you personally but rather the company. You are using the "royal" We/our like her Majesty does.

 

e.g. It would seem you got our details from the DVLA.....

In the meantime we absolutely deny any debt.....

 

Yours

Director