Parking Eye, Letter Before Court

[thegingerpractitioner]

Hi all,

 

I have followed this thread and it seems that I have experienced something very similar. I think I am on the #3 of 3 letter that offers a reduced amount if I pay within the next 14 days. I have received a letter stating as thus and I'm wondering what step can I take next.

 

Is there a chance that matters could be taken further (ie, to 'commence court proceedings') or am I ok to carry on ignoring the letters as I have previously done?

 

I can post a pdf of said letter on this thread if that can help my situation. Any advice that can be offered would be greatly appreciated,

 

Thanks,

TGP

[ericsbrother]

You have absolutely nothing to fear from DR+, THEY CANNOT DO ANYTHING. the best they can do after sending you scary letters is to tell PE that you havent fallen for their tricks and they are giving up.

Do not even waste a stamp contacting them but keep an eye out for anything from PE, as they are litigious.

[thegingerpractitioner]

You have absolutely nothing to fear from DR+, THEY CANNOT DO ANYTHING. the best they can do after sending you scary letters is to tell PE that you havent fallen for their tricks and they are giving up.

Do not even waste a stamp contacting them but keep an eye out for anything from PE, as they are litigious.

 

Thank you, I'll keep an eye out for anything from PE and post on here.

 

Thanks again,

TGP

[CharlieCC]

The next letter arrives from DR+ from their collections manager thanking me for the communication regards the parking charge notice! Their findings were that the site where the parking charge notice was issued was subject to terms and conditions. They have stated that we are past the POPLA access to independent appeals time limit! I take it that this is scaremongering again as they are quoting the PE vs Beavis & Wardley case at the end of their letter. Anyone any thoughts or advice on this?

 

Many thanks

 

Charlie

[f16]

Advice :

 

Post # 27 "ericsbrother". Bang on.

[ericsbrother]

PEv Beavis is due to be heard in Jan next year. It is not a precedent as PE like to claim it is. I bet they dont quote it after they lose the appeal.

So, if DR+ want to follow that example they are saying dont pay anything until you hear back from the court of appeal. Why they dont write that in their letters if they are not trying to be scary I dont know.

[CharlieCC]

Hello all again. Two and a half years later and Equita are now harassing. Initial letter stating Beavis etc and asking for £200 prompted my reply like the parking prankster querying costs breakdown. Now received black and white letter 'final demand' for £150 from Head of Legal Services and stating that debt recovery officers have now been passed file for preparation for further action. Is this something to worry about or is general consensus to just hang fire?

[ericsbrother]

firther action-like deleting it from their computer begagram system.

If they really had a claim they would not keep changinmg the amount they are mugging you for and anyway, who are Equita you should ask yourself.

Beavis decision just says that £85 for breaking a contract is not unconscionable and no proof of actual loss need to be shown. It doesnt mean that any demand made under any circumstances for any amount is now correct or even legal, just another threat to make you think they are in the right when they most likely arent.

[CharlieCC]

Thank you. Had visions of bailiffs being appointed. So it seems still ignore.

[ericsbrother]

yes, they have sent out hundreds of these and are flawed in their assumptions about the contact from PE

[FTMDave]

Thank you. Had visions of bailiffs being appointed. So it seems still ignore.

 

 

They can only get bailiffs involved after beating you in court.