Charge Private Firms for correspondance

[Forcemaster]

Was just wondering if you could send a letter to one of the Private parking companies and include some small print on the letter that states you are charing them an administration fee for entering into correspondance with them and that any subsequent written communication received admits acceptance of these terms and conditions, payable on demand???

[buzby]

Dupe

[buzby]

No. You need to state your terms prior to enforcing the charge. This gives them the opportunity to accept or decline. If they still write to you, you can then reply, stating the date of your earlier letter and the imposition of your fee of (say) £10 per letter. Keep a running total of the amount ourstanding until it gets to a decent amount (£50-£80) then you can use the courts to recover.

[Forcemaster]

No. You need to state your terms prior to enforcing the charge. This gives them the opportunity to accept or decline. If they still write to you, you can then reply, stating the date of your earlier letter and the imposition of your fee of (say) £10 per letter. Keep a running total of the amount ourstanding until it gets to a decent amount (£50-£80) then you can use the courts to recover.

 

That is was i was trying to say... though having just finished nights I was not perhaps as eloquent I wished to be...

 

Thanks for the relpy though

[Al27]

Worth trying with NCP or Euro Car Parks.

[miniconverter]

Was just having a look on here as my daughter has a few scamvoices from a ppc I was going to send them a letter confirming she is the registered keeper and all future correspondence must be accompanied by the standard admin charge of £60

[Yorky2008]

I seem to remember a previous poster charging a company for replying to their letters (think he called it 'training services' :o) ) and he ended up getting paid so state it up front and give it a go.

 

Yorky.

[Forcemaster]

Was just having a look on here as my daughter has a few [problem]voices from a ppc I was going to send them a letter confirming she is the registered keeper and all future correspondence must be accompanied by the standard admin charge of £60

 

If you are going to ignore the cardinal rule of ignoring the PPC just dont declare who was the driver!

[green_and_mean]

If you are going to ignore the cardinal rule of ignoring the PPC just dont declare who was the driver!

 

How is telling someone his daughter is the keeper revealing who was driving??

[buzby]

Also, £60? That would be unreasonable. To work it would have to be a reasonable amount, not punitive.

[Dublindel]

I charged a ppc fifty pounds and if not paid would be converted into a years permit to park. Now they have a problem.

[buzby]

Don't see how. It required their agreement to create a contract - and that won't happen! So you're at square one.

[Forcemaster]

Also, £60? That would be unreasonable. To work it would have to be a reasonable amount, not punitive.

 

I agree that £60 would be unreasonable... maybe more like £20 per letter you send stating it as an 'administrative charge' for time spent and materials used (i.e. postage, paper, envelopes etc.) and you would probably have to put it in small print (after all who reads the small print:lol:)

[Forcemaster]

How is telling someone his daughter is the keeper revealing who was driving??

 

My bad... was reading this after finishing nights which is never my best time to be eloquent

[Forcemaster]

Don't see how. It required their agreement to create a contract - and that won't happen! So you're at square one.

 

Isn't the idea that by them writing back to you after you have 'applied' the correspondnace charge they have agreed to your terms? Infact it could be argued that by writing back the 'agreement' is more solid than the initial PPC in the first place as you have it 'in writing' that you will charge them from that point on and the recepit of any correspondace back is acceptance of said charge.

[Britainsworstdriver]

Also, £60? That would be unreasonable. To work it would have to be a reasonable amount, not punitive.

 

UNREASONABLE??????? We are talking about private parking companies here. name a single one that is reasonable themselves.

[Yorky2008]

Also, £60? That would be unreasonable. To work it would have to be a reasonable amount, not punitive.

 

Charge them your hourly employed (or contracting) rate pro rata depending on how long the letter takes you to write, thats what I have done in past and never had any issues as you can prove its not a 'made up' amount by producing a payslip or invoice.

 

Yorky.

[buzby]

£9 is the rate for a letter sent by the complainant, along with £9 per hour for research, but it all has to be reasonable or it is easily challenged in the other party claims you are feather-bedding. Then the issue moves away from the main injustice, to a side show you cannot control.

[Al27]

The issue would be whether they word their letters in a way that they are saying they want a reply. On the other hand, it's hard to write a demanding letter that is asking to be ignored!

[newmoses]

The Supreme court act 1983 comes to mind when charging a company for correspondence.I think it may be section 16 but not 100% sure.I successfully used it against 3 PPC's, Moorcroft debt collecting agency, and T-mobile.Rather than accept my terms, they all folded and nothing more was heard from them.

[buzby]

That might help legitimise the action of claiming, but not the amount - which is already well established for litigants in person at £9 per hour for research or a letter, up to the relevant cap.

[Yorky2008]

Yes but thats for LIP, this is not LIP, otherwise we would all be earning £9/hr!

[buzby]

Doesn't matter for non-LIP, their professional fees are capped in the Small Claims track, so the end result is the same!

[Yorky2008]

Its not reached small claims, so irrelevant, previous poster advised of charges for dealing with the corresspondance and how to agree to these charges (if I remember rightly) and therefore nothing to do with capped LIP charges.

[buzby]

The point remains, charges have to be agreed, they cannot be arbitrarily applied.