Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi slick!    On 22 July they said they would refund me £74.07 Theres no DD in place as my membership was a once off payment in November last year.  Hi Dx,    I paid through PayPal last year as a one off payment. 
    • I'm trying to understand it all but I certainly tend to agree with my colleague @dx100uk that it looks as if you may have been taken for a ride. You found an advertisement for a bag on an online sales site. Instead of going through the established procedure of that site, which presumably allows them to recover a commission from the seller you started dealing directly with the seller who is an unknown person to you and of course that allowed the seller to avoid paying the commission. At whose suggestion was it that you went off-site? You then pay by PayPal but instead of logging it with PayPal as a payment for a purchased item, you tell PayPal that it was actually simply a gift or transaction between friends and family. This also allowed the seller to avoid paying a PayPal fee on the money. At whose suggestion was it that you paid in this way?       I don't say that you definitely have been scammed, but it doesn't look very good. This is how it might have happened: after you agreed to take the transaction off-site, so you lost the protection of the established system – and the seller avoided the commission and also avoided the sales site knowing that they had sold their item, you then agreed to pay the seller some money – but not for a purchase – simply as a gift. This has two consequences. Firstly, the seller avoids a PayPal fee and secondly, because PayPal has been misled as to the purpose of the payment, you lose the protection of PayPal if it turns out that you've been scammed or there is some other problem with the transaction. The seller then apparently sent you the parcel and they sent you pictures of a package with your address on it. Separately they sent you a Hermes tracking number – but there is no evidence that the package was actually posted to your address. The seller might simply have taken a picture with your address and sent that to you by way of reassurance – and then changed the label and posted the parcel to themselves but sent you a tracking number which is inaccessible to you and in respect of which you will be prevented from getting any information. All you've seen is a parcel with your address on it. All you've been given is a tracking number which satisfied you for a while until the parcel did not arrive and then when you started to make enquiries, you found that you were unable to access any details referring to the tracking number. Of course the tracking number says that the item was delivered – because maybe it was – but in that case it was delivered to the address on the parcel which might have been the seller's own address – or the address of a friend. I don't want to say that this is definitely how it happened, but it is a plausible scenario. Of course Hermes is an awful lot of parcels – but on the other hand I expect that most of the parcel is that going to Hermes hands are delivered successfully. We only get the bad stories on this forum. I can imagine that Hermes rate of successful deliveries is better than 97% because otherwise people wouldn't simply just hate them, they would go out of business.   We can help you bring a complaint against Hermes if you want. However, on the basis of what you say, the odds are stacked against you but it would be useful to try and find out the address which was associated with tracking number. As far as your apparent willingness to travel hundred and 50 miles to ask for your money back, don't bother. If you did actually go there, are you sure that the seller actually lives at the address that you have been given? What evidence do you have that? Of course if you found that the seller didn't reside at that address then it is slamdunk that you have been scammed. But then what are you going to do? You can try to inform the police but of course it won't get you anywhere. You can inform the sales website – but they will say that you brought it on yourself because you agreed to go off-site. You can inform PayPal – that they will say that because you sent the money which was calculated to avoid their fees, you have lost the protection. If you travelled the 150 miles and found that the seller did reside at that address, do you really think that they are going to hand your money over to you? If they are acting dishonestly then they will simply say that it is nothing to do with them, that they addressed it all correctly and they don't understand what has happened and that this is simply Hermes up to their old tricks. What are you going to do? You simply risk getting into a very nasty argument and depending on how bad it went, you might even find that the police are called and I'm afraid that they would be looking at you – not the seller. Maybe you can answer the questions that I've post above as to who it is who initiated the various ways of doing business.    
    • The legal campaign's going well then. The recount in Wisconsin gave Trump more votes but Biden even more, at a cost of $3m. And a donor to the organisation bringing the failed cases is suing to get his $2.5m back.   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/28/joe-biden-gains-votes-in-wisconsin-county-after-trump-ordered-recount
    • Yes Unicorn feed tax again, can't sue the keeper for more than the Original Charge, so any additional Debt Collection fees aka the £60 they add is abuse,iof process as per HHJ Harvey at Lewes county Court What lookedinfroinfo is indicating is that the main signage on entry and dotted around is merely an " Invitation to Treat", not the offer, the Offer and Acceptance occurs at the payment machine, so wording there is key.
  • Our picks

PCN from PPS - Didcot station car park


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2139 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I have received a PCN from PPS for parking in Didcot station car park, and I am hoping I can get some help from the forum. I have previously used the advice here to avoid penalty fees, but things seem to have changed with the introduction of POPLA and I'm now not sure of the best approach.

 

Here's the situation:

I parked, as I often have done, in Didcot station car park on 3rd July and paid using the RingGo app as usual. Or at least, it appeared to have successfully my booking. However, apparently it didn't work on this occasion and I received a PCN on my car. When I saw this, I immediately made a payment (again) using RingGo, so that the car park operator was not out of pocket and wrote to them within four days to explain the situation.

 

I heard nothing back until two weeks ago, when I received an invoice for the increased amount (£100). I wrote back to challenge this on four points:

1. The fault was with the RingGo app, and I thought I had paid the fee on time in good faith, as I had done many times previously.

2. I immediately re-made the payment, meaning that the parking operator was not out of pocket.

3. They waited too long (two months) to follow up on this matter.

4. I wrote to them within 14 days and so, according to PPS, the penalty would be £50, not £100. (Although, as I mention above, no penalty is due, nor allowed in contract law).

 

Yesterday, they emailed back with a pdf copy of a letter dated 23rd July rejecting my initial letter and offering the POPLA mediation service. However, this letter did not arrive at my house - I don't know whether they sent it at all, or whether there was a problem in delivery. Otherwise, I would have responded to it. Now it seems that I am too late to use POPLA, as it has been more than 28 days.

 

 

My questions to the forum are now:

1. Should I use the POPLA process to progress my arguments on the points above? Or should I simply write back to repeat my rejection of their claim and call an end to the matter?

 

2. Is it even possible to use POPLA, as the 28 days has expired since their non-arriving letter? Does it make a difference that I didn't receive their letter?

 

3. Is there some other approach I should take? And do I have a good chance of winning this?

 

Many thanks in advance for any help,

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites

As they havent followed the protocols of the PoFA theyare on a very sticky wicket in trying to calim anything so I dont think that you have too much to worry about.

If you really want to go via POPLA 9and cost them some money) write to the BPA with a complaint that PPS are deliberately ignoring the timescales of the PoFA and denying you the chance of appealing the charge as a result of their behaviour and demand to know what the BPA is going to do about it.

Send a copy of the complaint to POPLA (not via email) so they are aware that PPS are taking the biscuit on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You responded to the windscreen ticket ( NTD ) so have identified the driver.

 

Check when the POPLA code was generated here;

 

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/

 

Does that tally up with what they say?

 

Demand proof of postage that the rejection letter was sent as you never received it.

And state that you expect a new POPLA code to be sent if proof of postage is not forthcoming...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

thanks for the quick replies. I've checked the code checker and it's valid. They just didn't sent it to me (at least, it didn't arrive - and I am not in the habit of igoring post). OK I will ask them for proof of postage and a new POPLA code.

I was also thinking of asking for the following evidence from them in preparation of a POPLA appeal:

- Records from the RingGo system to prove that they did not receive a request from my phone.

- A copy of their contract with the landowner indicating that they have the authority to give motorists the right to park.

- Accounting records showing how the penalty charge is related to the loss that they incurred as a result of my parking.

 

What do you think?

 

@ericsbrother - you sound sceptical about POPLA. Do you recommend I don't use it? What approach do you suggest?

 

Again - thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming!

 

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

I assume this was a train station car park and as such would it be worth checking whether any by laws operate on that site. There should be something on the notice board

 

All they have lost is the cost of he parking except that you paid it so what have they lost? Nowt!

 

Erics brother isn't sceptical of using POPLA. It is that they are out of time to do anything. By all means appeal to PPS first and then get the code to take the appeal higher as this will then cost them.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didcot parkway station is operated by First Great Western. Apcoa ' manage ' all their car parks.

 

Looking on google Street, it would seem the OP parked in the car park opposite the station ' managed ' by PPS.

 

Relevant land is not an issue in this case I believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is the station car part opposite the station, not the Apcoa one.

 

I'll ask PPS for a code and for the information about RingGo and their authority to collect parking charges. Let's see how they respond.

 

Thanks again,

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi all,

 

PPS has responded quite aggressively to my communication. They did not issue a new POPLA code as requested, but instead reiterated their demand for payment. They have not given me a breakdown of their pre-estimate of loss, as requested, and have not provided computer records from RingGo as I requested. I followed the link they provided to see more information about the pre-estimate of loss, and this had scanned copies of POPLA adjudications saying, "the operator has provided a breakdown of their losses and I am satisfied that this loss is justified and flows from the appellant's breach of contract. The operator has provided a witness statement to confirm that they have the authority to issue parking charge notices at this site."

 

I am nervous that they will now pursue me through the courts for the £100. Any advice on how to proceed?

 

Here is the key part of the letter from PPS:

 

The Parking Charge Notices that we issue represent liquidated and ascertained damages. When a

motorist parks in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking, we incur a loss because incorrect

parking prevents the efficient management of the car park. The amount of the Parking Charge Notice

represents a genuine pre-estimate of the additional expense incurred by us as a result of this. It will be

seen that the charge of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days is within the prescribed guidelines

issued by the British Parking Association, our governing body. The charge is in accordance with the

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. You have not offered any evidence as to why the charge exceeded the

appropriate amount. The genuine pre-estimation of loss set out below refers to costs that we estimated,

at the time of issuing the PCN that may flow from the initial loss for this individual charge only. For further

information, regarding genuine pre-estimation of loss, please visit our website pps[dot]uk[dot]com on Home

Page, Newsfeed, for recent adjudications by POPLA in our favour on this point.

Please forward a payment of £100 to reach us by 31/10/2014 in order to avoid Debt Recovery

proceedings; incurring additional costs. Please be aware that when appealing any further the charge will

not be placed on hold.

 

Thanks in advance,

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore them. You paid the prescribed fee so any cost they have accrued since is all their own doing and not a result of any breach by you. They are out of time on the rest, havent followed the protocols of the act they quote and I suspect that they will now pass this on to some tame DCA to send you threatograms on an occasional basis. They are unlikely to have any right to make a legal claim against you as most railway land is covered by byelaws that preclude the PoFA being relevant legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks for the advice. Should I send a final denial? or a cease-and-desist letter?

 

I am not familiar with PoFA and how it might affect this.

 

Thanks,

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites
They are unlikely to have any right to make a legal claim against you as most railway land is covered by byelaws that preclude the PoFA being relevant legislation.

 

 

 

It is the car park opposite the station, not the station car park.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore means ignore.

as for whether it is relevant land then land covered by statute such as docks and harbours, railway property and airports is not "relevant land". Most station car parks have arrangements wheer a company collects the money on behalf of the railway co but issues the "tickets" for breaching the contracts placed there by themselves that make the money for themselves. What should happen is the parking co should eport the motorist for breaching byelaw 14 or 15 and then the railway co should seek a prosecution under those powers. however, the parking co and railway co dont get any money then so they have this crooked understanding between them to fleece the motorist instead.

As the post above indicates it is not a station car park then the ownership of the land and who is the occupier should be determined. If it is not owned by the railway co but managed by them then the parking co is unlikely to have the assignment necessary from the landowner to allow them to pursue a motorist for damages. If this is the case here then ignoring PPS is still the way to go and make them show their hand as they havent followed the procedures as stated so they dont stand a chance of making a successful claim in a court for damages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input. I am pretty sure it is not owned by the station, which has two proper car parks nearby. This is just some rough ground opposite the station.

 

So I should sit tight and wait to see what comes through the door. Threatograms, presumably?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are unlikely to do anything more than send out threatening letters as they are holding a busted flush and they undoubtedly know it. Further correspondence on your part means that you are actually thinking about it and they see this as a hopeful sign that you will waver and pay up. Keep any letters you get from them or their representatives and if you start getting texts on your mobile report them to the FCO for improper debt collection practices and the ICO for breaches of the DPA (assuming you havent given them permission to harass you by phone)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Update: I received a letter rejecting the points of my dispute. They went to some pains to say that the penalty fee was actually a realistic estimate of liquidated damages, and that they could provide numbers to back this up. I ignored this letter. They have now sent another letter, in which they have increased the penalty to £130, which "represents their increasing costs". I am ignoring this letter too.

 

I am somewhat nervous, because I cannot prove that I attempted to make the payment with their app, and they may be able to produce paperwork in court that shows how their "liquidated damages" costs are calculated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't tell me you really expected them to agree with you. If they did this to everyone then they would go out of business pretty sharpish. It wouldn't have mattered what you said they would still have rejected it.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but I wasn't expecting them to come back with an argument that defended the penalty charge in terms of realistic liquidated damages. I could imagine being in court and they present a long and realistic-looking spreadsheet showing all their ticket-checking and penalty-collecting costs, compared to the sum of all fines collected.

 

Anyway, as I say, I am sitting tight for now and will let you know if it comes to the court. Based on previous experience, I am expecting threatograms from "debt collection" agencies now, which I will rebuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they not give you a POPLA code so that you could escalate this?

 

As it is, they cannot justify the 'liquidated damages' as they will no doubt include signage and other costs that could never be claimed in court.

 

It doesn't matter that you cannot prove that you tried to pay. The burden of proof is on them and if (BIG IF) they choose to go to court, a well prepared defence will do you a power of good.

 

The fact that you did pay means that there can be no loss to claim for.

 

Carry on ignoring for now.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently they wrote to me with a POPLA code earlier on, but the letter that they sent to me with the code and POPLA form didn't arrive (see my earlier post about this). I only found this out when they sent me a pdf copy of the letter and the POPLA form, but by then the period for POPLA had expired. I asked for a new POPLA code but they didn't provide one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a standard trick for some companies. they generate a number, bin the letter and that way it looks as though the fault is yours. The reality is they dont want to go to POPLA as it costs them money and they will most likely lose. You can complain to the BPA about the mising code and point out that they havebeen keen enought to send out a rejection letter withour the code so why wasnt it included in that correspondence.

Dont bother with writing to them again, they havent stuck to the rules so dont waste your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Latest update: I received a threatogram a month ago, which was two weeks after the previous notice had upped the penalty to £130 (i.e. dated 17/11/14). This time, PPS threatened to "pass this debt to our legal department for consideration to bring proceedings in the County Court. We regularly use this county court process as can be seen on our website www.pps.uk.com".

 

I ignored the letter (and the previous one), as I would be interested in seeing how this plays out in court, if it ever got that far. It's now a month since the letter, and there's been no follow-up so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We regularly use this county court process as can be seen on our website

 

Erm! No. It doesn't show county court cases, only POPLA cases which the appellant has lost. 7 in total (although we have to wonder why they did not list cases 1-5)! It obviously doesn't show how many appeals were won.

 

This time, PPS threatened to "pass this debt to our legal department for consideration to bring proceedings in the county court"
which means we will think about court action but it is easier and cheaper to pass on to a DCA instead.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...