Parking Charge Notice from Central Ticketing (Ltd)

[letshelp]

HELP PLEASE!

 

I parked for 15 minutes in a private residential area in Ediburgh (One of the worst cities in the UK for car parking and congestion!). I Couldn't find a parking slot, came back and found a parking notice on my windscreen issued by Central Ticketing advising I pay £65 within 14 days or face paying £100 within 28 days of the date of issue.

 

I wonder why they don't go for, £10,000 if not paid within 56 days?

 

The issue reason was "no permit" which i agree. They advise on the ticket that I can appeal,

 

:lol::lol:

 

Can you please advise if I shoud pay it or ignore it?

 

Ignore is the favored option.

 

Is the ticket a legal document?

 

No.

 

It makes reference to teh Administration Act 1970 so that may imply these crooks do have some legal powers.

 

In their dreams.

 

If I ingore it, wait and see what they do, should I ever respond?

 

No.

 

Thanks

regards

[JOLEE]

Well, I'm now quite a few days over the 2 weeks since my ticket has been issued and I've not heard anything so far - even though they say I will hear from them after 14 days.

 

Anyone think they may have given up already or forgotton about me?

Edited September 24, 2009 by JOLEE
typo

[JOLEE]

OK then so they haven't forgotton. Further advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

I now have a lovely "Formal Demand Before Court Action" with me.

 

Apart from their obvious issues with being able to spell or use correct grammer in the letter I notice that once again, the location of the "offence" has changed to another location........ It would seem they can't seem to make their mind up about where the car in question was alledgedly parked.

 

Theres quite a bit of waffle..... Ticket was placed on aforementioned vehicle, chance to pay discounted amount expired blah blah, we want more money blah blah, will go up again in x amount of days blah blah, this letter forms part of our case against the driver of the vehicle.

 

The one interesting bit I find comes at the bottom of the letter. They ask that if the vehicle was sold, leased or hired during the alleged "offence" to provide the details of the person driving. However they interestingly add: "NOTE: Only a full postal address including post code will be accepted. You remain liable for the above parking charge until this information is provided".

 

Any thoughts?

Edited October 15, 2009 by JOLEE

[crem]

Their letter is a joke so please take it in the spirit in which they clearly sent it and have a good laugh at it.

[JOLEE]

Their letter is a joke so please take it in the spirit in which they clearly sent it and have a good laugh at it.

Oh I have had a chuckle about it - and also nearly cried that they have sent it (thought they'd forgotten).

 

I know recently that everyone has said ignore ignore ignore which I am balanced just about over 50% on doing - although it does seem hard to not defend myself. Also the note about this going against you if it goes to court (and I know thats a big if) - does that still stand? Is it unreasonable to ignore it?

 

Secondly, does anyone have any comment on CTs motto on their letters - "Integrity, Fairness, Honesty"?

[crem]

 

Secondly, does anyone have any comment on CTs motto on their letters - "Integrity, Fairness, Honesty"?

 

Yes...

 

:lol:

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

CT need to add the words "we are lacking" to the each word of their motto. Lol

[JOLEE]

Yes...

 

:lol:

 

CT need to add the words "we are lacking" to the each word of their motto. Lol

 

Haha, definitely agree! I had to try and lighten the mood and my worry by reading their motto several times and each time realising that, as suggested, they are indeed lacking integrity, fairness and honesty along with a good spell checker or reasonably intelligent typists .

 

Bernie seems to suggest in the templates that ignoring can be construed as unreasonable in court. Can it?

 

Also, I would love to see the evidence of alleged contravention at said car park as the car in question has never been to said car park with me or anyone else for that matter!

[asmodeus]

ignoring can be construed as unreasonable in court

 

Possibly but receiving unpleasant, threatening and deceitful mail in the post trying to solicit an exhorbitant sum of money is also unreasonable.

When I send anything requiring a reply I always include an SAE yet these scamsters do not so obviously they do not expect a reply.

[Conned Sumer]

The whole "IF" it goes to court is my only worry that, ignoring their correspondence would be seen as a bad thing

 

However does that also mean that all the phishing emailers, and postal scams should also take me to task for ignoring them?

 

As far as I am aware the presumed contract is unsolicited and unenforcable so should be treated the same as a [problem] letter.

[dx100uk]

ignore them

no ppc has ever been succesful do some reading...

 

dx

[DDWales]

Secondly, does anyone have any comment on CTs motto on their letters - "Integrity, Fairness, Honesty"?

 

I nearly fell out of my chair reading that!

 

CT are talking the usual PPC drivel...'you are liable for the parking charge' etc.. I note you are at the 'formal demand' stage- about as frightening as Moorcroft's 'Pre Litigation Division'!!! Continue to ignore this and please do not worry about court-if they tried it your in safe hands on here

[JOLEE]

Possibly but receiving unpleasant, threatening and deceitful mail in the post trying to solicit an exhorbitant sum of money is also unreasonable.

When I send anything requiring a reply I always include an SAE yet these scamsters do not so obviously they do not expect a reply.

 

I suppose you have a point in there. So even if it was deemed unreasonable it would be kind of equal as its an unreasonable answer to an unreasonable action? (I guess?!?)

 

The whole "IF" it goes to court is my only worry that, ignoring their correspondence would be seen as a bad thing

 

However does that also mean that all the phishing emailers, and postal scams should also take me to task for ignoring them?

 

As far as I am aware the presumed contract is unsolicited and unenforcable so should be treated the same as a [problem] letter.

 

I can also see you point. However it seems like a little more, as its no some random person from Uganda wanting to deposit money in my account or someone in the US wanting to sell my Viagra - its people who have gone to the trouble of finding out who I am, where I live etc etc believing that I owe them something.

 

ignore them

no ppc has ever been succesful do some reading...

 

dx

 

I've done lots of reading since I first was aware of it. And I know what you mean. I just don't want to be the PPCs "landmark" judgement.

 

I guess I just overworry- but I cant help it! . I just don't want them to have a case to argue to say that by ignoring them I accepted anything in there letters (which is quite frankly sh**!). I mean so far the claim the following:

 

1. I have entered into a contract with them and / or their associates - I firmly deny this.

2. That I am the driver of the vehicle at the time of the "offence" - I firmly deny this along with the fact of ever having commited an "offence".

3. That I was at a certain location where I commited an "offence" - I firmly deny ever being at such location and would even go further to deny that the car, with any driver, has never been to that location.

4. That I as the RK of the car am liable to this charge until a full postal address and contact details are provided for the driver - I firmly deny this also.

 

I know I worry but I don't want them to get the upper hand on something I should be the clear leader in!

[JOLEE]

I nearly fell out of my chair reading that!

 

CT are talking the usual PPC drivel...'you are liable for the parking charge' etc.. I note you are at the 'formal demand' stage- about as frightening as Moorcroft's 'Pre Litigation Division'!!! Continue to ignore this and please do not worry about court-if they tried it your in safe hands on here

 

Thanks for the reassurance. I'm just worried as per above . I'll try to not let it bother me...

[dx100uk]

ok well if you want to waste your time .............

 

you will just keep getting letter after letter.

just like throwing a stick for a dog...it always comes back!

 

 

unsubbing.

 

dx

[JOLEE]

ok well if you want to waste your time .............

 

you will just keep getting letter after letter.

just like throwing a stick for a dog...it always comes back!

 

 

unsubbing.

 

dx

 

On the contrary, I'd rather not waste my time.

 

Just checking that my non respondance cannot be counted as acceptance of the waffle in their letters about me being responsible, ever being there, being the driver etc - all the things I deny above.

[letshelp]

You already have your defence in the remote chance of this getting anywhere near a court, Not being the driver being the strongest point.

The rubbish that you are liable as the RK is why these clowns will go nowhere near a court room.

Stop worrying and get on with your life.

regards

[JOLEE]

You already have your defence in the remote chance of this getting anywhere near a court, Not being the driver being the strongest point.

The rubbish that you are liable as the RK is why these clowns will go nowhere near a court room.

Stop worrying and get on with your life.

regards

 

OK, thank you everyone for your reassurance.

 

Back to ignoring again.........

[asmodeus]

As far as I am aware the presumed contract is unsolicited and unenforcable so should be treated the same as a [problem] letter.

 

It is not the same as a [problem] letter is IS a [problem] letter.

 

You will receive a minimum of three of these with lots of red lettering before the 'Debt Collector' gets involved who will state that due to no reply being received by his client will be passing your details to the 'Solicitors' for possible action in court. These will in turn threaten you with court action which will involve you in more costs and damage your credit record. Be prepared for the possibility of a phone call from the DC or Solicitors asking you to confirm details of who you are etc. and if so do not give them any information whatsoever as they already have too much and insist on their name not the company's, what position they hold so you have a record of their call.

 

They can do nothing without a Court order and that will not happen even if you ask them to take you because they know full well what the outcome will be as it can easily be defended. These companies rely on people thinking they have broken a law and getting out a cheque book without thinking

 

Read through the threads if you are in any doubt

Edited October 17, 2009 by asmodeus

[JOLEE]

The issue rolls on as expected haha.

 

"Roxburghe" debt collectors now. General gist of the letter is the same. Repeats the info they already have including my "offence date" ;-).

 

All about how I agree under T&Cs that its all my fault and that I was on location.

 

Without payment or dispute Graham White is going to get involved in 7 days.

 

I know everything says ignore but i don't really want them turning up at all.

 

Surley theres no harm in:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Re: Your letter dated [dd/mmmm/yyyy] Reference[#]

 

This alleged debt is in dispute.

 

In the circumstances please refer this matter back to your client.

 

Any further correspondence from you in relation to this matter may result in a complaint to the authorities under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997.

 

No permission is given for you, your agents or any related company to enter the grounds of the property and any attempt to do so will be promptly reported to the Police.

Yours faithfully

.

 

Anyways, advice is welcome as always . And if I did send the letter above doesn't that mean under FSA rules that a) they can't pursue it and b) legally they can't come to my door.

[BaldyBaldwin]

Do not contact them as they will start to think they have you rattled. you have done the best thing so far by ignoring them, you should continue to do so until they give up.

 

best of luck BB

[Michael Browne]

 

I know everything says ignore but i don't really want them turning up at all.

 

Surley theres no harm in:

I've never seen an instance where Roxburghe turn up, it's just not cost effective for them.

 

Any reply will merely signal to them that you're worried and encourage them all the more

[letshelp]

Jolee,

 

If you want this to go away asap, DO NOT contact them.

As stated they will think you are wavering and increase their threatening letters.

regards

[JOLEE]

OK, so I've held my nerve and so far remained out of contact with them completely as advised.

 

Now.... just to bring us up to date.....

 

Its solicitor time!

 

Michael Sobell acting on behalf of Graham White Solicitors. The general jist of this one is Central Ticketing contacted you, you ignored, Roxbourghe contacted you, you ignored so now an "Notice of Intended Action".

 

I must now pay a total of £425 to clear the matter up - after various itemised charges (aka crap) have been added.

 

Need to settle within 7 days or their taking my sweet little ass to court.

 

I am also told to note that my life is over, i'll never forget this, i'll never get credit again (even from the local paper shop :O ), and that they'll happily tell "all interested parties" that I'm a complete loser who shouldn't be allowed anything so much as a penny sweet on loan.

 

Oh, and when my judgement order is made they'll send round baliffs unless I cough up £425 + any lovely extras they'd like.

 

I've held my nerve so far and feel kind of proud . Still ignore? I guess I know what the answer will be but the reassurance helps keep me going!

 

PS. As an addition is it also true that the "real" Graham White Sols are peed off that someone else is using their name (apparently from reading the real ones are based in Hertfordshire) and the Mr Sobell works for the council?

Edited December 4, 2009 by JOLEE

[letshelp]

Hi Jolee,

 

Yes standard Graham White rubbish, this forums joke solicitor.

You are need the end of the process now. Continue to hold your nerve it will never reach court.

regards