Ignore? - better to write to the car park owner

[BankFodder]

This could be better advice

 

 

If you are considering ignoring a letter from a private parking company demanding money for some alleged parking incident - you should understand that this may not be the best course of action.

 

It might be better to write to the car park owner - the supermarket etc - not the parking company- with a brief letter denying that any money is owed at all. Ask the car park owner if they have given authority to the car park operator to bring any legal action against you.

 

Finally tell them that depending on their answers, you may be willing to consider their demand but you require a breakdown of the figure they are demanding and an explanation as to how the sum claimed represents their administrative costs.

If you reply to the car park owner in this way, they will then understand that you are up for a fight, that you know your rights and that there will be no chance of an easy default victory if they decide to take you to court.

 

The car park owner will also realise that it is their reputation which is associated with their draconian action - not the parking company which is merely acting as a fall-boy.

 

Write only once and then do not respond to any other demand unless they reply to you in full.

 

We think that this may be better than merely ignoring them.

It is likely to have a greater effect if you involve the car park owner as closely and as often as possible.

This will ensure that the carpark owner is aware of what is happening in their name and of the injustice and lack of proportionality of their actions.

 

Don't forget that it was customer pressure on Somerfields which prompted them to cancel their contract with Parking Eye.

[Andy77799]

message box full!

[Crocdoc]

Agree entirely, I understand that this approach has been used for some time by Citizens Advice in Scotland with huge success.

[steveod]

Agree entirely, I understand that this approach has been used for some time by Citizens Advice in Scotland with huge success.

 

I kind of agree but not entirely. By contacting them you are giving away a great "appeal" point in that they cannot identify the driver. And of all the ppcs invoices I have seen, and all the notices to the RK I personally haven't seen any that meet the requirement of the protection of freedoms act and this could be the primary appeal point to popla if the driver has not identified themselves.

[havinastella]

I kind of agree but not entirely. By contacting them you are giving away a great "appeal" point in that they cannot identify the driver. And of all the ppcs invoices I have seen, and all the notices to the RK I personally haven't seen any that meet the requirement of the protection of freedoms act and this could be the primary appeal point to popla if the driver has not identified themselves.

 

This point was useless after Nov last year as the PPC can now go after the Registered keeper.

[intend]

Agree with opening post - the land owner where it is a retailer merely wants to maximise revenue from customers. They do this by having a high turnover of customers in their stores hence the the time limit on parking. Informing the retailer that the actions PPC is going to cost them business in store will often prompt them into action.

 

On a personal note I wrote to Aldi after daughter got 2 in quick succession pointing out that As a family we spent £x per week which would be lost to them if no action taken. Got a refund of £40 that daughter paid in panic, second ticket cancelled and now signs changed to 90 mins from 1 hour - so has cost the PPC to change. At no time did I communicate with the PPC.

 

Intend

[lamma]

Dealing with the Principal can easily obviate the Agent.

[steveod]

This point was useless after Nov last year as the PPC can now go after the Registered keeper.

 

Not quite correct. They can only go after the RK if the parking charge notices, time requirements are all met, which in the case of the majority of these notices are not met so therefore if the notice does meet the requirements it may better to just ignore IMO.

[Crocdoc]

I kind of agree but not entirely. By contacting them you are giving away a great "appeal" point in that they cannot identify the driver. And of all the ppcs invoices I have seen, and all the notices to the RK I personally haven't seen any that meet the requirement of the protection of freedoms act and this could be the primary appeal point to popla if the driver has not identified themselves.

 

In Scotland there is still no need to identify the driver as the Protection of Freedoms Act does not apply. Therefore any response should contain the following paragraph.

 

I would remind you that under Scottish Jurisdiction the owner/keeper of a vehicle is under no obligation whatsoever to provide details of the driver to a commercial company of no legal status of any description, therefore should it be your intention to pursue this matter further it is up to you as the claimant to provide all relevant proof, it is most certainly not the defender's responsibility to prove otherwise.

[mygeneration]

Having written twice to the car park owner and been ignored, what do the team think about writing to the letters page of the local paper?

[intend]

Personally think it a good idea, might be even better to try and get the local paper to run a story on it.