Parking Charge Notice advice

[lamma]

who made the offer to park ? the PPC or the landowner ? or someone else ? what consideration has the PPC supplied ? this is a long way from a cert in court for the PPC. LOTS of things to be addressed.

[Blagton]

It would be possible to challenge it under the Unfair Contracts Act 1977, I agree, but with no guarantee of success.

 

So you are suggesting a court would uphold a claim for £70 (or more as PPC will attempt to claim) for a loss of Zero under the Unfair Contracts Act ?

 

You should apply for a job within a PPC's crack legal team

 

A PPC wouldn't spend money going near court - as we know they just gve up after a while and spend the money on postage sending more Invoices out to the unwary.

 

Blagton

[crem]

For the benefit of Mark, who posted the request in the first place, please don't rely on the information in this forum.

Why not? Many people have been taking good advise from this forum for years. What has suddenly changed for you too suggest people should no langer take CAGs advise?

 

I have a different opinion from some of the other people posting

that's fine. CAG always allows a variety of views

 

- and I am sure everyone is putting their honestly held opinions. My concern is that you have entered into an implied contract by parking on this site. Others clearly disagree with me. Do take further advice if you want.

The OP is always entitled to take the suggestion of one CAGger or another, or non of them, or go ask elsewhere if they want, but I am sure the OP is pleased to receive your blessing to do so.

..

[Michael Browne]

For the benefit of Mark, who posted the request in the first place, please don't rely on the information in this forum. .

 

How bizarre. You seem happy to ask and accept advice yourself. First with Lambeth:

I WON !!!

Stick to your guns, do the right thing, and end up with the Council paying £80 instead!

 

To all of you who offered advice ... thank you!!!

 

and then with Excel:

Thanks to everyone for your advice. So the opinion is ... stick it out. Don't pay.

 

[asmodeus]

Car park was free to shoppers so there is no loss to the landowner

 

The whole PPC [problem] is a set up designed to entrap people

 

Advice given here is mostly by people who have been caught in the trap and usd the said technique for escaping

 

Note to caggers - please walk across bridges as quietly as possible so as not to awaken those that sleep under them

[lamma]

For the benefit of Mark, who posted the request in the first place, please don't rely on the information in this forum. I have a different opinion from some of the other people posting - and I am sure everyone is putting their honestly held opinions. My concern is that you have entered into an implied contract by parking on this site. Others clearly disagree with me. Do take further advice if you want.

 

No pictures of the signage, no pictures of where the vehicle was parked. No knowledge of who made the offer to park, no knowledge of whether of not the PPC has landowner or agency rights, no knowledge of who the landowner is. No knowledge of the paper the PPCS sent and how many regs it breaks - and they all break plenty of regs. And you are concerned about an implied contract existing ? The law gets applied after the facts are decided. You know nothing about the circumstances and believe there is an implied contract. That is absurd.

[Markyrp]

Hello Everyone,

 

The amount of additions to this thread is much appreciated. Now for an update as promised.

 

I received another letter from TPS this morning eith the title "Legal Action Pending". It also states that an additional £40 "Collection and Administration fee" has been added "in accordance with the terms and conditions prominently displayed......"

 

The letter also contains statements about Legal departments, solicitors bailiffs etc, and a repeat of the threat about my abilty to obtain credit in the future if they have to take this matter to their solicitors for further action.

 

The thing that alarmed me most about this latest correspondence, is the fact that these [problematic] have mistakenly included a letter addressed to a lady in Glasgow. My initial thought was "why have they sent me 2 copies" as the text in the letter including dates is identical. I then noticed the name and address and had to chuckle. Very professional.

 

The intended recipient will be blissfully unaware of this latest correspondence but the fact that she has received the same letter as me suggests that she has also decided to ignore them. Or maybe these cowboys have been unsuccessful in sending any correspondence to her. Who knows?

 

Again, thanks for everone's input.

 

Mark

[letshelp]

"Legal Action Pending".

:lol:

[munchuk]

I have now received three letters for 'overstaying' at a motorway service station. After reading many forum entries I have also decided to ignore. I find the process many hundreds, thousands, of motorist are being made to endure an outrage and action must be taken.

 

I would suggest that there is little political will to act against this legalised extortion, especially with the economy as it is and an election due.

 

My only suggestion is to get the media involved. I wrote to Ray Massey of the Daily Mail - [email protected] - following a campaign he ran against 'Cowboy Clampers' that has now resulted in changes in the law. Perhaps a concerted and focused series of emails may solicit a response.

[crem]

I wrote to Ray Massey of the Daily Mail - [email protected] - following a campaign he ran against 'Cowboy Clampers' that has now resulted in changes in the law. Perhaps a concerted and focused series of emails may solicit a response.

 

What change in the law?

[munchuk]

Link to mail article in November, there was a further article in December that confirm the 'regulations'

 

Victory for the Mail campaign: Cowboy clampers face five years' jail | Mail Online

 

Clamping soars as cowboys cash in before tough government regulations kick in | Mail Online

 

Hope this helps

[crem]

Well until any of us see this "change in the law" actually make any difference to the way the clampers operate, then I don't think the Mail can claim it as a victory.

 

The only change in the law that should have occurred should have been the Scottish route of making clamping illegal.

[pin1onu]

Link to mail article in November, there was a further article in December that confirm the 'regulations'

 

Victory for the Mail campaign: Cowboy clampers face five years' jail | Mail Online

 

 

I agree with Crem. There has been no change in the law as for as I am aware. This so called victory is something of a non starter.

 

The Security Industry Act already allowed for unlicensed clampers to be jailed for up to £5000 and/or up to 5 years jail. This is hardly new. The same penalty applies to a landlord who engages unlicensed clampers.

 

The industry regulator the SIA has been shown to be a toothless dog, there have been very few prosecutions against clampers. Catching unlicensed clampers is a difficult action at best. I can't see how new regulations are going to change this.

 

Clamping soars as cowboys cash in before tough government regulations kick in | Mail Online

 

I suspect this is not so much an attempt to claw cash in before the regulations kick in, rather an indication that the ticketing revenue stream is drying up helped by sites like this one.

 

NB we've yet to see any substance to the proposed regulations or dates for implementing them.

 

By all means contact the press but unless there is a real headline grabber don't count on it getting any results.

[Jamberson]

The first article mentioned a Bill. It's not law unless the Bill is passed, and it becomes an Act of Parliament.

[kiptower]

maybe another petition to the PM to unify the Law that is in Scotland re clamping, to cover England, Wales and NI, and an investigation as of the FAILURE of the SIA to oversee the Industry

 

this is the United Kingdom the Laws were the same once why should they be different now,

 

someone should be looking to see what MP's or those in the Justice system have a connection / interest with these cowboys, also those connected with the DCA industry

[Markyrp]

Just an update on the current situation.

 

I received a letter this morning from a firm called Debt Recovery Plus Ltd. They claim that there client (TPS Parking Solutions Ltd) has now instructed them to recover the monies, now standing at £148.75.

 

The letter goes on to inform me that it is essential that I settle the account without delay or contact the offices to discuss proposals for payment.

 

The letter then confuses me a bit in that it states "As a member of the British Parking Association, (BPA) and its Approved Operators Scheme (AOS) we adhere to its code of practice. Therefore we now invite you to declare whether or not you were the driver........."

 

My confusion is how or why a debt recovery firm would be a member of such organisations.

 

The threat continues about failure to make full payment or make contact will result being passed to the litigation team and legal recovery action may commence.

It then goes on to quote typical case referrals to County Courts, and if successful enforcement options include:

AN ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS ORDER

COUNTY COURT BAILIFFS BEING INSTRUCTED

YOUR ITEMS BEING SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO PAY THE JUDGEMENT.

 

Another goes on about requests for statutory interest, court costs and legal fees significantly increasing the amount outstanding and the knock on effect of CCJ's lasting 6 years and severely affecting ability to obtain credit.

 

The parting shot is an invitation to view a selection of CCJ's that they successfullyobtained against pepople who have ignored their correspondence on their website.

 

Is there any credance to this latest installment? I really do not want to push this to the extent that I do end up with a CCJ, but I feel that it is them just ramping up the threat level.

 

Any further advice very much welcomed.

 

Mark

[kiptower]

because they are all in the same office and share one printer, its just the teaboy claiming to be the solicitor , its the cleaners day off :grin:

 

and you are not supposed to spot the stupid errors they make

 

total load of tosh , and you dont have to tell them anything regardless of who was driving

[Markyrp]

Thanks for the quick response.

 

I appreciate the assistance and advice. I am now going to browse the aforementioned website to view a selection of their successful CCJ's. It promises to be interesting.

 

Has anyone actually received a CCJ as a result of this or similar scenario?

[Michael Browne]

Since they also deal in commercial debts, rent arrears etc, there's no knowing how many of the CCJ's are for PPC's. I suspect exactly zero.

[Markyrp]

I now visited the Debt Recovery Plus Ltd website.

 

Quote from website:

"Contrary to what you may have read on various web forums Debt Recovery Plus Ltd DOES apply for CCJ’s against individuals and companies who resist payment. Please don’t believe everything you read on the forums. See the below list for some of the CCJ’s we have successfully applied for in recent months.

 

If this is the case, and a CCJ or whatever they are called in Scotland is issued, does this reflect on your credit file or is that only the case if you fail to pay?

 

I still can't believe that this is all down to allegedly overstaying a permitted period in a free car park.

 

I really don't want to pay but cannot risk a CCJ or Scottish equivalent against me.

[Michael Browne]

I now visited the Debt Recovery Plus Ltd website.

 

Quote from website:

"Contrary to what you may have read on various web forums Debt Recovery Plus Ltd DOES apply for CCJ’s against individuals and companies who resist payment. Please don’t believe everything you read on the forums. See the below list for some of the CCJ’s we have successfully applied for in recent months. That applies equally to DRPL website

 

If this is the case, and a CCJ or whatever they are called in Scotland is issued, does this reflect on your credit file or is that only the case if you fail to pay?

 

 

I really don't want to pay but cannot risk a CCJ or Scottish equivalent against me.

1. They have to identify the driver

2. They have to isue a court claim

3. They have to win

4. Only if the judgement is not settled within 28 days is a CCJ recorded on your credit file

[letshelp]

I really don't want to pay but cannot risk a CCJ or Scottish equivalent against me.

You are clearly falling for the [problem]. remember, only mugs pay. There is certainly more charities worthy of your money than a company with no more credibility than a Nigerian email [EDIT].

[Markyrp]

Thanks for the updates.

 

I will continue to ignore and update if/when I receive further correspondence.

[letshelp]

I will continue to ignore.

The way to really hurt them.

regards

[Markyrp]

Just to update.

 

This morning I received another letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd. This one has in big, bold lettering "NOTICE OF INTENDED LITIGATION".

 

The letter this time again requests settlement within 7 days. Also warns that if I do not contact them following receipt of this letter, they have no alternative other than to assume that I am avoiding payment. In this situation the account will be referred to their client for their approval to apply for a CCJ against me.

 

It highlights the additional charges if legal action is necessary. These additional charges include Solicitor's fees, Court fees and Solicitor's costs for getting judgment (by default). The predicted amount outstanding has now risen to an incredible £253.75. Not bad for an overstay in a free car park.

 

Any thoughts or comments would be much appreciated.

 

Mark