E S Parking enforcement ticket outside a closed pizza shop

[trafalgar]

Hi all,

 

My spouse regularly visits a salon near Preston (part of a row of shops off the main road).

 

Usually the parking is pretty full and the only way to park is adjacent to the shop (i.e. a Pizza shop) if there's a free space.

 

A sign was put up on the corner of the Pizza shop advising parking penalties (some months before), but when the staff were asked at the salon they said to ignore it as the Pizza shop is closed during the day.

 

Just before Christmas a £50 parking ticket was noticed on the windscreen on exiting the salon and this has been followed up by a letter raising this to £100 threatening pursual and court action.

 

My view is that there is no contract between the driver and the parking company and as the shop is closed during the day there is no material loss and the "Parking Charge" amount grossly exceeds reasonable charges in any event.

 

The driver is not named so they have written to the registered keeper

 

I feel it is prudent to respond robustly in writing - quoting some of the legalise in the court defence thread but I'd appreciate a steer as to how to proceed.

 

Any assistance gratefully appreciated.

 

Trafalgar

Edited January 23, 2016 by trafalgar
clarify

[armadillo71]

Who is the PPC?

 

Date of the parking event and date the NTK was received please.

 

 

Can you post up a redacted copy of the NTK please.

[ericsbrother]

shop being closed makes no difference, in fact it rather proves that you werent a customer! however there is a lot a parking co has to do before the charge becomes legally enforceable so tell us if you have the original parking ticket and what the NTK says as often the wording of these destroys the parking co's claim.

Also, you say just beofre christmas, tell us the date.

[trafalgar]

Thanks,

 

Letter (PDF of front & back) attached. Date 17th Dec, Letter 19th Jan, PPC is Espel. Yes, we have the original ticket - I'll dig it out and post it asap.

 

T

Parking Charge Redacted.pdf

Edited January 23, 2016 by trafalgar

[silverfox1961]

Thread title changed to include the PPC name,

 

ES Parking are members of the IPC who allegedly use a kangaroo court system when deciding appeals.

 

The letter they have sent is misleading at best. It states the 21 days for appeal has now gone. That may be true for the driver but not the keeper. You can appeal using any grounds you like as they will automatically reject you.

You then have the opportunity to use the IAS appeals and this is where the letter is misleading. It states that you can use the non standard appeals process and is referred to it by ES as if it is the only option. Not true! You appeal in the standard way and in all likelihood the IAS will also reject you.

 

On a separate note, the IPC and the IAS are run by the same people that run Gladstones Solicitors and it is they that appoint the anonymous adjudicators who decide whether to allow an appeal or not. So, ask yourself, just how independant they really are?

 

The only way ES can enforce payment is to take court action against the keeper on the assumption that the keeper was also the driver. As far as my checks go, they have taken no court action in the last year. Speaks volumes eh!

[trafalgar]

Much obliged SilverFox.

 

The appeals system is clearly a sham then and hopefully there are precedents for this kind of ruse (but sadly being the victim of the court system during the bank charge fiasco I wouldn't put my house on it).

 

Ignoring this letter is not a great defence strategy should they pursue further - I was thinking that responding using the "modify to suit" form in the sticky could be the way to go - without disclosing who was the driver perhaps?

 

Gladstones are obviously another set of ambulance chasers who aren't good enough to practice real law.

 

T

[silverfox1961]

In any letter sent, you say, "The Driver" and never name them. You are just playing them at their own game.

 

As the IPC and the IAS don't follow the procedures laid down in PoFA 2012, any court action would likely fail as they haven't followed the required pre action protocols.

 

ES parking are one of the smaller companies and they have only been running for just over a year so finding out what their financial standing is, is quite hard.

 

They rely on consumer ignorance of the difference between Penalty Charge and Parking Charge with most paying up without question and before the amount goes up. This is why we are here.

[armadillo71]

They are not using the POFA so there is no keeper liability.

 

A simple response from the RK stating that they were not the driver and not to write to them again. Take the matter up with the driver of the vehicle.

 

Now this won't get it cancelled but it is all that is needed. Expect numerous debt collection letters that are meaningless though.

 

Do not say on here if the driver is the RK.

[trafalgar]

Thanks Armadillo.

 

Short & sweet is always the best policy

 

T

[ericsbrother]

the supposed breach of "leaving site" is the subject of a court decision in VCS v Ibbotson so they are talking out of the wrong end of their alimentary canal but they will try it on anyway cos how else are they going to make a dishonest buck? Let them know that you know that you know ( but do not refer to driver, just say that no keeper liability and BTW there is no such breach as....) but when they respond dont bother with the offer of going to the IAS other than to have a laugh at their interpretation of the law. Your letter is enough of a paper trail to make any claim against you vexed so they will probably cut their losses and go quiet

[trafalgar]

Thanks ericsbrother.

 

I've not penned the response yet - but I'll do just that in as few words as possible - many thanks for the additional case ref.

 

T

[silverfox1961]

Thanks ericsbrother.

 

I've not penned the response yet - but I'll do just that in as few words as possible - many thanks for the additional case ref.

 

T

 

Two words should be plenty

[trafalgar]

Thanks SilverFox and everyone who has helped so far, alas, received another letter demanding £125 now - up from £100 and threatening passing debt onto debt recovery agency. I have been away for a bit and not responded at all yet - so: "As the registered keeper I have no liability in this matter. Please do not write to me again" Need more or less be said? Thanks. T

[silverfox1961]

A debt recovery agent! Ooh scary! (NOT)

 

I would love to play them at their own game. I would state:

 

As the registered keeper, there is no liability in this matter.

As you have added an admin fee without my consent, I reserve the right to do the same therefore should you write to me again, I will also add an administration fee in any response to you. This fee will be set at the same level you wish to charge me. Please refer this matter to the independent appeals service.

 

 

If they did try it on in court, I would do a counterclaim for my fees

[trafalgar]

Cheers for that - good point on admin fees - since the registered keeper is not liable I'm going with the following:

 

Dear (I would love to put: "fascist bully boys" ) ,

 

"As registered keeper there is no liability in this matter. Should you write to me again I reserve the right to charge you an administration fee set at the same level indicated in your correspondence. Please do not write to me again."

 

What a palaver. FFS.

T

[ericsbrother]

They rely on ignorance and fear to make a dishonest crust. As you know full well you will have had to enter into some form of credit agreement to make this admin fee allowable so that means they need a consumer credit licence Befoe you send your foff letter look them up in the list of organisations who hold a consumer credit licence and if they arent listed you could point this out to them and suggest that they are otherwise committing at least 1 criminal offence and probably more.

[trafalgar]

Thanks again.

 

Attached is the letter - my bad - "admin" not actually mentioned but they have "added charges" because of not replying to their initial demands - doesn't say what the charges are for - cleverly worded to imply "admin" I thought.

 

T

Fine letter Redacted.pdf

[ericsbrother]

If they added a million quid you would certainly question it but they rely on fear and ignorance to get away with this. If 1 person pays up that funds the threatograms for another 20 potential mugs and they get to keep the original undeserved amount as well.

I used to run a retail business, imagine if I sent out invoices to all of my previous customers asking for a £20 fee because they didnt say thank you for their goods.

[trafalgar]

Absolutely - they're lower than a snake's belly.

 

Response will be popped in the post tomorrow.

 

T

[trafalgar]

Hi all,

 

Having sent the short response in the previous post have now received a letter from an alleged debt recovery agency addressed to the RK - please see redacted attached - the amount due has now risen to £185.

 

Comments as to how to deal with this alleged "offence" from these "new" ambulance chasers much appreciated.

 

T

Debt Letter Redacted.pdf

[BazzaS]

Hi all,

 

Having sent the short response in the previous post have now received a letter from an alleged debt recovery agency addressed to the RK - please see redacted attached - the amount due has now risen to £185.

 

Comments as to how to deal with this alleged "offence" from these "new" ambulance chasers much appreciated.

 

T

 

Dear ZZPS,

 

I am the registered keeper of vehicle

Thankyou for your letter of

 

As the registered keeper (and not the driver in this instance) of the vehicle I have no liability in this matter. I have informed E S Parking of this previously.

 

You may wish to write to the driver directly, or if you wish, if you identify them to me I shall pass this letter on to them. Please note you are under no obligation to identify the driver to me."

 

The last paragraph may confuse them (bless!), but if they try and get you to identify the driver you can reply "I was not the driver. I am under no obligation to identify the driver. I do not become subject to any liability in this matter by not identifying the driver"

[ericsbrother]

I wouldnt waste a stamp, no dca has any authority and cannot do anything off ther own bat. There is nio debt so it hasnt gone up to £185, they made that figure up and hope you are frightened or dumb enough to pay it.

[trafalgar]

Sincerest thanks,

 

We are gratefully indebted to you both (BazzaS and ericsbrother), and as you point out we certainly are not indebted to these charlatans.

 

We'll not respond and waste more energy on them so I'll probably be back here again when another stupid missive arrives and hopefully this thread serves as a classic example of what these crooks can get up to.

 

Thanks again.

 

T

[ericsbrother]

the next missive will either say they are going to kill your graany if you dotn pay or they are sending the matter back to ES and recommending that they commence court action straight away. You should be aware that they can "recommend" anything they like, I recommend Coniston Bluebird bitter but you dont get penalised if you dont drink it..

[trafalgar]

As expected, here's the next letter arrived this morning threatening court action by ZZPS... and of course they take the opportunity to raise the bill by another £36 (what a surprise).

 

Now who is taking who to court here - they seem to blanket assume that the RK is liable and as you say ericsbrother they have no grounds.

 

I have the urge to write to them but is there any point?

 

Cheers,

TZZPS Threat 2 Redacted.pdf

Edited April 1, 2016 by trafalgar