Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1282 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

Hello to everyone here, I would be very grateful if you have some advice on a rather strange letter from RLP.

 

Basically I am Bi-polar, normally I'm fine and nobody would know but one day last month I was in the manic phase of my condition due to a change in medication. I had gone into boots and bought a number of items, but I'd also put 3 low cost items a total of £4 in my pocket.

 

I left the store with these but I then realised what I'd done, never stolen in 27 years didn't want to then. So I returned to the store as I was going to pay for said items but as I approached it, two security guards although I don't remember seeing Sia licences on them asked me to follow them. I tried to explain but it fell upon deaf ears.

 

I was taken to the back room of the store and spoken to like a child. Then my bag was searched with paid items being broken before I was searched, patted down. Then one security guard left to price check the items stolen in total 3.95. My driving licence was photographed and so was I. Then I was told I was banned from all boots and would receive a fine for my actions. I though this was fair at the time.

 

But then I received a letter from RLP it stated there had been an incident in store and I was being fined for losses even though in the next sentence RLP say the store suffered no loss. I was expecting a small penalty fine of maybe £30 but no £147.50! I looked around on the Internet for a bit and read through these forums, I decided to ignore the letter.

 

Now however I have has a second letter from them threading to write to my parents or guardian. I'm 27 years old and both my parents have passed away!

 

I'm just wondering what I should do about it, do I just ignore them again? Send them a short reply? Thanks for any advice

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

I don't know enough about Bi-polar to be able to add much however I did have to laugh at that silly letter. Passing on your details to your parents. You are 27 and if they did that you could sue them for breaching your data protection rights. Bunch of muppets.

 

You have obviously read a few threads about RLP and the advice is still the same.

 

Ignore RLP

 

Once RLP get bored sending letters, they will pass this on to their pet debt collector.

 

Ignore the pet debt collector.

 

Boots could take court action if they wished but they won't. They will be unable to justify the amounts claimed so they don't bother and rely on RLP to chase you.

 

So, if I haven't made myself clear yet. IGNORE RLP!!!!!


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did RLP actually call the charge a FINE? and in writing? No can do, as per Silverfox ignore them.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rlp can't do ANYTHING. EVER. Ignore them, use the letters as toilet roll substitute and move on with your life


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick message to say thank you for the replies, I will definitely keep ignoring them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who said you will be fined? And did you get it in writing


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fine comment was from a security guard where as the letter states simply either amount outstanding or sum sought. Sorry if my message was a little unclear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore totally rlp

 

 

end off


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this will be seen, but further to my initial post RLP actually followed through and sent a letter to my address with to the parent or guardian of......... obviously it came to me as I'm the only one at the address and I'm 27 years old. Is this practice legal by RLP or am I in a position to visit a cab to discuss action against them for breach of the data protection act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again.

 

That's odd. Yes, RLP have written to parents and guardians in the past, in an effort to embarrass them into paying the speculative invoice. I don't remember them writing to someone well over that age though, it will be interesting to see what the forum regulars think.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like theyre just throwing out template letters to me, and dont really care who they go to. Jackie will eventually send one to the wrong person, and no amount of begging or excuses will stop her being brought before a court personally.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn. Sometimes I wish I had shoplifted just to take them to task. This is harassment pure and simple. Writing to a 27 year olds parents is purely intimidation and a complete breach of the Data Protection Act. If your parents were still with us and you lived at home, they may have opened it and likely all hell would have been let loose.

 

Personally, I would let the Information Commissioner know what a shoddy company this is.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Silverfox... jackie will just say shes acting on information given to her by the shop, and none of it is her or her companies fault.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go for it, a complaint to the ICO about the incorrect retention, processing and distribution of your data.

It is not legal but the ICO likes to use the softly softly approach and educate the wrongdoers rather than actually punish them for being crooks.

 

Not sure if this will be seen, but further to my initial post RLP actually followed through and sent a letter to my address with to the parent or guardian of......... obviously it came to me as I'm the only one at the address and I'm 27 years old. Is this practice legal by RLP or am I in a position to visit a cab to discuss action against them for breach of the data protection act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...