PPC from OPC - Please help!

[The Diddler]

Hi, I received a private parking charge yesterday from a company called OPC and it had official stamp saying BPA approved operator. I had used a car park a couple of weeks before, one that I have used regularly for past 4 years, and is a free car park, and I had stayed for less than 20 minutes longer than the maximum stay. The letter confirms that they have photographic evidence of me entering and leaving the car park which proves that I had stayed over the maximum time. The PPC is for £100, £50 if I pay within 14 days. They state if I do not pay they will take me to court and I may have to pay up to £400. I had never took any notice of the signs in the car park previously and so I honestly did not realise there was a time limit for parking there. I re-visited the site and there are quite a few signs in the car park showing maximum stay and confirming you will be fined if you overstay the maximum time, I do not know how I failed to notice this, although the signs are quite small - but you don't expect to be fined if parking is free? My question is should I pay up quickly to avoid higher fees, but the fee seems very high especially as it is a free car park and it was not busy the day I parked anyway. I am an honest person and I do not want to get into trouble, the thought of court is scary but this seems very unreasonable to me. I am concerned as I am the only person insured to drive my car so it is obvious who would have been driving it, so I do not think I could argue this as suggested in other posts. Please can someone offer advice, even if it is to pay up! I have heard that they can only sue for actual losses so if it is a free car park wouldn't that make the losses nil??? I am very frightened about just ignoring this as I can not afford £400. Thanks

[Tony P]

Pay nothing. Do not contact them. Totally ignore them.

 

There is no fine - only Courts can do that.

 

Yes, the maximum they can seek is their actual loss or damage by your being there. As the parking was free for a period what is their loss for the next 20 minutes? You got it - NOTHING.

Thats what you pay them!

 

Dont worry about their intimidatory threats of Court. The only time OPC go to Court is as Defendant

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/03/31/26000-fine-for-parking-firm/

 

Sadly you will have to put up with a series of Threat-0-Grammes. But dont worry - enjoy the feeling of gently placing them in the recycling box. It's very relaxing.

 

Come back here when the intimidation is beginning to play on you. Be strong.

[The Diddler]

Hi, thanks for your reply. I have had a look at your link and they do appear to be a dodgy company, however it looks like it only got thrown out of court due to the people that were fined being able to prove they entered and left the car park twice and therefore did not overstay they time, whereas I did overstay the maximum period according to OPC and photos (I have not seen the photos).

[Tony P]

Yes, I agree the case was not particularly relevant to you other than to demonstrate OPC's business model has no respect for Law. That extends to misrepresenting facts to intimidate people into paying money they have no obligation to pay.

 

The point remains the 'Notice' you received is nothing more than a Speculative Invoice - a begging letter asking to to voluntarily send them money for no legal reason other than your generosity and fear of unwarranted intimidation.

 

Look back over the last dozen pages of past threads and read all those with OPC in the title. Look at the Stickeys at the top of the list about Speculative Invoices and PPCs

 

For more about OPC and their ethics look at paragraphs 37 onwards of this submission before the UK Parliamentary Commons Select Committee.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/writev/dda/dda09.htm

 

Trust me. Do nothing. Iignore them. You owe them nothing.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Tony P

[BASFORDLAD2]

Opc have also been spanked in court many times.

 

Your in safe hands here. Don't worry!! If they do take you to court(very unlikely) then yiou are in the right place.

 

From this thread you will see how many times they have lost in court http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3414489

 

The thing about your insurance is irrelevent as they have no way of finding out.

 

If you pay up now then you would just be falling for another [problem]..

 

Also you can visit pepipoo which has a good private ticket section.

 

Finally you are taking this bunch far to seriously.

Edited November 18, 2011 by BASFORDLAD2

[hessey50]

There is a chance that by mistakenly seeming to remember they had an incident with the vehicle that they for some strange moment in time made them think they could lawfully use the MIB website to check if the vehicle was insured they could obtain this information it would not say who else would be covered by their own third party insurance to drive the car so it still is no proof who may have been the driver.

But this is indeed taking matters seriously that are really the province of Python humour.

"I have a completely unfounded sum of money I want you to pay me"

"Ok Gov its a fair Cop"

The key to the way the whole thing works is in the OP statement "I am very frightened "

As every one else says its irrelevant threats there is no such animal as as private penalty charge or fine its just a speculative invoice.any time the temptation is to contact them at all immediately take a swift dose of medicine from the forums. They sound very intimidating they have to as they know they cant win so fear of all the dreadful things that they MAY , MIGHT,COULD do is their way forward.

[The Diddler]

Hi, I have had a look over the internet since posting this and apparently there is a new law being introduced in April 2012 which will allow the PPC companies to pursue the registered keeper for monies. Is anyone else aware of this?

[BASFORDLAD2]

Of course we are . But it makes no difference. Again you are taking this to Seriously

[Old Snowy]

Hi, I have had a look over the internet since posting this and apparently there is a new law being introduced in April 2012 which will allow the PPC companies to pursue the registered keeper for monies. Is anyone else aware of this?

Fear not. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill - which is what is being referred to - does contain a clause setting out how private parking companies (PPC) may pursue the registered keeper (RK) in respect of unpaid charges.

 

However, what is not said is that all this does is to provide a mechanism for PPC's to take RK's to the small claims court and makes no reference whatsoever to the greatest stumbling block of all. That is that whether the PPC initiate proceedings for an alleged breach of contract or in respect of trespass there is simply no means - in civil law (this bill proposes no change to that law, by the way, and the clause in question sits oddly on its own and provides no powers) for the registered keeper to be held responsible unless the PPC can prove that they were driving. The only people capable of being held to the terms of a contract, and therefore liable to be sued for an alleged breach, are the parties to it (i.e. the driver and the PPC) and the only person responsible for any damages in tort for trespass is the trespasser - i.e. the driver.

 

This clause changes the law not one jot and the only body that can rule on whether a person is liable for the so-called charges (assuming that they do not amount to a penalty and can be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of damages) is a court of law. PPC's simply do not do court on anything like a regular basis because it fouls up their business model. They simply cannot recover what it actually costs them to issue and pursue proceedings and besides the cost such work is very time consuming. Ever hour taken in preparing proceedings is an hour during which they cannot pursue other victims and therefore make money rather than spending it. Besides, the regularity with which PPC's are thoroughly spanked in court means that they often conspire in their own financial downfall.

 

Importantly, if and when the Bill becomes law it will not be retrospective and you therefore have nothing to fear from that perspective.

[The Diddler]

Thank you for the clarification regarding the new bill, I appreciate that as I was a bit worried about it before. From what you have said I am pressuming that irrespective of whether or not I was the driver on the day in question, what they are asking is realistically a penalty and therefore not a legitimate claim - it definately is not a realistic estimate of damages as the car parking is free anyway. I will try and ignore this letter, but I have to confess I will find it difficult as I am a bit of a worrier and I have never dared ignore anything like this before.

Thanks for the advice.

[Tony P]

From what you have said I am pressuming that irrespective of whether or not I was the driver on the day in question, what they are asking is realistically a penalty

What they are asking for is realistically money beyond any sustainable claim. Forget the word penalty. It is a Speculative Invoice, a begging letter, wrapped up to appear official and intimidating. Exactly as the worthless threat-o-grams that will be sent to the RK over the coming weeks and months.

IF they go to Court they can only take action against the Driver, if they know who he was. And the only possible claim that could succeed is for their actual loss suffered because of the Driver and car being there. Bearing mind entry was free for a period how can a further 20 minutes cause them actual damage and cost after the free period ended?

How do you sue someone for 'Nothing'? But sadly that doesn't deter unprincipled, threatening, intimidating beggers from preying on the weak, ignorant and ill-informed.

 

I have to confess I will find it difficult as I am a bit of a worrier and I have never dared ignore anything like this before.

Just the sort of person that ensures these people stay in business, and to be able to continue undeterred by multiple criminal convictions and £37,000 payouts to the Courts.

Even more important that you do not contact them - any contact is seen as a weakness they can exploit as well as possibly providing identity details so as to pressurise the Driver instead of the RK.

 

Be strong. Come back here for reassurance as time goes by.

[afcwben]

Fear not. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill - which is what is being referred to - does contain a clause setting out how private parking companies (PPC) may pursue the registered keeper (RK) in respect of unpaid charges.

 

no difference to what they can do now, they can take anyone to court if they want