Bogus parking charges Excel - Moor Centre car park Brierley Hill

[wakaday]

I received a Parking charge of £60 from Excel for code 82- parked after expiry of time. The date of contravention was 12/03/10, and their notice was dated 26/03/10. I always use £1 for 2 hours on this car park. I know Excel have a zero tolerance policy. Their evidence is very weak, two low resolution pictures, just about make out my VRN. I’ve sent a template letter requesting proof of the driver and contravention. I received a response today, with no further evidence and the threat of £100 charge or court action.

 

I’ve now found out that there have been many bogus charges sent out from Excel for this car park. Some people have the pay & display proof , and one paid the first £60 fine under duress, never used the car park again and still received another charge.

 

My plan is to send another letter of rejection, but I’m quite prepared to collect all the evidence I can to put a case together for Watchdog or local press. I found an article in the Express & Star news paper back in May 2008 of similar activities by Excel.

 

Please contact me if you have any experiences of excel on this car park? Please let me know your thoughts?

[crem]

You're wasting your time and money communicating with them at all.

 

Do not write to them

Do not telephone them

Do not reply to any of their letters

Do not pay them

[wakaday]

I realise ignoring them is one approach, put I would feel more comfortable engaging them with carefully written letters. Then if they decide to take me to court then I would have acted appropriately.

In any case I'm begining to collate plenty of evidense of their bogus parking fine [problem]. Why should we allow them to get away with it?

[diskmandave]

I absolutely concur.

 

Different approaches for different people.

[Dublindel]

The ignore point of view is rubbish. THe hooked fish and you get more letters is also rubbish. Write one very comprehensive letter and include cease and desist. To ignore allows them to harass people. After your letter they have no choice but to stop or go to court. Further letters from them would kill off. HAt one pep cent chance view had me winning.

[Al27]

Your approach takes time, effort and money and rarely has any effect.

 

They want you to contact them, which is one purpose of the phoney appeals procedure. Writing just demonstrates to them that you don't understand the [problem].

 

I realise ignoring them is one approach, put I would feel more comfortable engaging them with carefully written letters. Then if they decide to take me to court then I would have acted appropriately.

 

1. Your urge to contact them is precisely what their paperwork is trying to achieve, short of actual payment.

2. You have MORE chance of being taken to court if you contact them. That's how they cherry pick their victims.

3. Court looks at facts. Non-contact doesn't change the legal facts of the case.

[Dublindel]

Don't listen to this rubbish. DO it your way, and one letter only should do it. Pm me.

[dx100uk]

dangle a carrott......................

 

dx

[crem]

Don't listen to this rubbish. DO it your way, and one letter only should do it. Pm me.

 

Whilst everyone on the forum is entitled to an opinion, it is somewhat offensive of you to describe the majority opinion on CAG as "rubbish".

 

Asking the OP to go "off board" and speak to you privately regarding a problem is also highly discouraged by CAG. The purpose of using the open forum is to ensure everyone's advise can be seen and commented on, for good or bad, and ultimately the OP can then make a considered judgement as to how they want to handle the situation.

[asmodeus]

The advice here is sound and certainly in mine and many more peoples experience ignore works well.

 

Any form of contact shows you are taking them seriously and generally will mean that instead of ceasing and desisting will just encourages to send more junk mail.

 

The last bunch to chase me for an alleged infringement of their parking rules has been more persistant with several phone calls on top of the threat-o-grams all of which were ignored and inspite of being invited during several of these calls to proceed to court have failed to do so

 

How hard is it to throw their communications in the recycle bin

 

It is a [problem] and therefore the best approach is to ignore it - i.e. would you write to the perpertrators of the the 'Nigerian [problem]' that continues to be sent over the internet - no you wouldn't and it would be deleted as spam. This is the same

[Dublindel]

If you IGNORE then in the unlikely but possible event that they press the matter into court, it is not a plus for the defendant that they ignored rather than responded in some form to reconcile the matter. To ignore completely means letters from the ppc, letters from DC's and solicitors. Followed possibly by new DC's buying the debt and renewed efforts every 6 months or so trying to clear outstanding INVOICES. This can all be either killed off with one comprehensive letter. So! How many more letters can they send simply because you reply once? Having sent that one letter to include 'cease and desist' and 'pursue through the courts' . After that letter the PPC has no real choice but to either go to court or drop the matter. Anything else is direct harassment and a police matter. No one should have to sit at home and get threatening letters. And PPC's do not deserve a single penny except the actual loss. To ignore is to invite them to carry on harassing and threatening you.

[david1605red]

As with much of this private parking issue, there is no black and white answer, it's all a grey area.

 

If you go down the ignore route, I'd agree that court action is less likely (0.001% instead of 0.002%). This is simply because the PPC has no idea whether you really exist, whether the reg. keeper was the driver, or indeed whether the person they're writing to is a fully qualified lawyer. So you end up with the standard chain of threatograms from the PPC, debt collectors, and dodgy "solicitors" before they give up and go away. In the (very) unlikely event that they issue a court claim and it actually gets in front of a Judge, I could envisage a situation where a Judge might say "Mr defendant, why didn't you simply reply to the claimant and dispute the charge?", and that might go against you.

 

Sending a "cease and desist, put up or shut up" type letter at the outset would possibly strengthen your defence in a court hearing, however with many PPCs this may simply trigger a standard "appeal rejected now pay up" response, and a chain of letters that goes on longer than if you ignored it.

 

The best advice is to do whichever you feel most comfortable with.

[Conniff]

The police wont be interested:

 

An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question

[Al27]

Hey, what do I know? I speak rubbish and have zero experience of dealing with PPCs apparently.

 

An apology would be asking too much I assume.

[Dublindel]

Sorry A127. But this is not a personal attack on any individual, but to just ignore does not suit many knowing they will get letter after letter, demand after demand. I believe that id you receive a request to pay an invoice, then you should address the matter with at least one letter. Full and final. If they choose to go to court and view won't, you Have evidence ofattempt to reconcile the matter. If they simply laugh off your letter and say your appeal has failed, you know you also can laugh it off as you Have done you need to do and view are embarrassing themselves.

[Al27]

No problem ;-)

 

I support the ignore approach, but whatever you do the chances of them doing anything other than giving up are very very slim.

[lamma]

there are arguments for both approaches. A properly written comprehensive letter can have its advantages as per Dublindel's posts. But handling the entire process requires a full understanding of what is going on and what the true legal position is. For most people this perspective is just not there. This is what we spend most of our time explaining to people - just how bogus this industry is. Those that are not fully aware and just try to send one letter killing off the issue will probably not get that letter correct and so will be subject to the usual increased barrage of threats. A good proportion of them then likely to pay up I think. Dublindel, if its a one size fits all letter then by all means please post up the draft of it. If its not a one size fits all then I don't think its a good approach for the reasons given above.

[Dublindel]

first off, let me say this. everything i have learned has been from you guys and it is greatly appreciated. having paid a ppc £20 in ignorance a few years ago, i got wise from the info on here. Since then i have always responded to the first letter ONLY and having sent about a dozen so far, i have not so far had any second letters or DC's chasing me. not saying my letters are the bees knees, but so far it has worked for me. my letters include various points such as - NOT THE DRIVER and not legally obliged to disclose the drivers details. - UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT section 5 (1)(2)(3). - APPEAL TO PPC NOT RECOGNISED, only court recognised. - CEASE & DESIST . etc etc. also letters to TV, Trading Standards, BPA, DVLA etc. have to stop here as visitor arrived

[lamma]

look forward to the rest. I would advice against claiming not the driver if you were the driver, leave the falsehoods to the PPCs they use enough ! a different matter putting them to proof of course

[Louanne]

Hi,

 

I have received a Parking Notice from Excel Parking saying that I have contravened Code 94, however I have the parking ticket that I displayed on my dashboard as proof that I did in fact pay the correct amount required. I am being told I need to pay £60, but I disagree. I have emailed Excel Parking asking them to explain why I should pay the fine as I have proof that I did pay and display! Any advice as I really don't want this to go any further and am quite worried about getting into trouble.

 

Thanks.

[Al27]

You've done enough already. It's a [problem].

 

• do not contact them

• do not pay

• ignore any threatening junkmail

• ignore any rubbish from powerless debt collectors and their lies about CCJs, credit and legal action

• they will give up and go away

 

Excel are well known cowboys. Keep your ticket and ignore the letters.

 

They are utterly powerless. It's a mail [problem]. They're hoping you'll cave and pay even though you don't owe them a penny and they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Wait for your 'appeal rejected' email to arrive in the meantime!

[lamma]

stop talking to them.

[kiptower]

its not a PARKING TICKET its a [problem] invoice

 

read the many posts of how they work the [problem]

 

all you need to do is IGNORE all their petty letters regardless of ehat they say they MAY do

[wakaday]

Going back to the begginning of this thread, and rightly or wrongly I have engaged Excel in correspondense, they have now sent me their evidense:

 

2 pictures of my car , entering & leaving the car park , indicating time, looks good image, but no driver ID

 

A spread sheet of vehicle & payments, my vehicle is indicated to have paid 50p , instaed of £1. Looks convincing to many, but could be fabricated evidense.

 

To my knowledge I've put anything but a £1 in this car park, 50p is not long enough.

 

They haven't upgraded the fine to £100, although I've exceeded that time limit, still asking for £60 by 2nd May.

 

What should I do next:

 

Assume their evidense is strong and pay.

 

Do nothing and risk going to court.

 

Continue challenging their evidense and claim only to be the keeper?

 

Advise appreciated?

[DBC]

The advice is still ignore. At the most they can claim for that alleged under-payment of 50p. Anything else would be deemed an unfair penalty. They will not take you to court. From now on to not contact them again and ignore any correspondence from them.

 

By the way it's not a "fine", only the police, courts and councils can levy fines. Excel are just a private company with no more power than you or me to demand such payments.