Debt collection agency now involved with CPN- Help!

[johidd]

This dates back a couple of months, when my car ( I was not the driver and can prove it) received a parking ticket from APCOA parking services, whilst parked overnight in a train station car park. (NB - no byelaws on reverse of ticket and no byelaws on notices in car park). as advised by another forum, I willingly stuffed the ticket in a drawer.

I have just received a letter from debt collectors (acting on behalf of APCOA) claiming this is an unpaid Civil Penalty Notice. Am I right in thinking that this does not hold the same legal weight as a PCN

 

They also claim that - quote "Even if you were not the driving the vehicle but were the registered keeper you also have a liability for the acts of the driver in parking in breach of the terms and conditions of parking"

Is that correct even if it's a CPN or are they just bluffing.

I am intending to write back to say that I am not liable for the drivers actions and nor am I obliged to inform them of the identity of the driver as the CPN is an invoice and not a fine.

Dear Experts - please advise!

[lamma]

complete and utter tripe from them.

 

not a chance of those claims holding up - they are garbage.

 

 

Do not contact them, just put this joke in the desk with the other stuff.

 

Clearly against Results within legislation - Statute Law Database and I would suggest the Fraud Act 2006 S.2 plus a few others in all probability. report them to Trading Standtards and quote those consumer regulation.

[Al27]

Fraudulent bluff.

 

Send copies to your Local Trading Standards, with a copy of this: Lancashire County Council Trading Standards

 

Highlight these parts and tell them they have a duty to investigate:

 

The use of the initials PCN

PCN is used by most companies as a Parking Charge Notice. Where parking is controlled by a public authority the method of enforcement is by a Penalty Charge Notice. This has a statutory basis under the Road Traffic Act 1991. The use of the same initials is potentially confusing and the connotation of penalty to most people is that it is a sanction that has some official basis or authority. Some companies use a format for the Parking Charge Notice that mimics the format of the Penalty Charge Notice to the extent that this is materially misleading It is arguable that any company that fails to make it clear that the demand for payment is contractual could be:

 

Committing an offence under S40 Administration of Justice Act 1970 (Harassment of Debtors)

Incorporating terms that are unfair under Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

Indicating that the Owner/Keeper of the vehicle is liable for the fee paid

For Penalty Charge Notices issued under Road Traffic Act the keeper of the vehicle is liable. This however does not extend to situations where vehicles are parked on private land. The onus is on the person demanding payment, under the contract, to show that the party to it has agreed. If the keeper was not using the vehicle at the time they cannot be held liable. (One reason clamping was used was the ability, under common law, of the landowner to detain goods which caused damage during trespass.)

 

The demand, if made to the keeper who was not using, is potentially an offence under Malicious Communications Act