Being hounded by Sussex Security

[Sk1p]

Oh boy am I relieved to find this thread.

 

N1ch3s what happened in the end?

 

I've just got the DP+ letter.

 

What bothers me is the reference to the binding court test case.

 

DP+ are the sister company to Sussex Security Solutions and Parking Enforcement.

 

Rumour has it they're owned by Van Hoogstraten.

 

Please, please, please tell me what the outcome was!

[Sk1p]

Hello there - I did not appeal, I ignored.

 

 

I had two fines for two very short periods in a period of under half an hour

(around ten minutes and then a couple of minutes

- no signage,

the word PRIVATE on the tarmac does not make it clear that these bays are private

- I did look for signs!).

 

 

The letters do not indicate the time

- the time period says 0:00 to ...8.25am or whatever.

 

 

I got follow up letters, twice, and I've got a DR+ letter,

which refers to the legally binding important test case

which means that all courts have to abide by that ruling in favour of parking companies.

 

I want to not pay this as it's legalised extortion and it's morally wrong.

 

 

The charity shop nearby this spot says they get many calls every day about this.

 

 

Rumour is, it's owned by Nicholas Van Hoogstraten.

 

 

Please help with some advice!

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

I've started a new thread for you, please continue to post on this one.

 

HB

[renegadeimp]

Ignore DR+ They are actually ran by a PPC iirc and will say and do anything, including lying, to get what they want anyway.

[Sk1p]

Thanks Renegadeimp - what's a PPC iirc?

 

Also, the bit about the test case is true - I checked.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/04/private-parking-fines-judges-rule-against-motorists

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

Here's a link to the forum stikky with abbreviations.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?168275-Posting-in-this-Forum-and-A-Z-of-Motoring-Terms

 

IIRC is 'if I recall correctly' AFAIK.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

Private parking company

And they are not fines either

Speculative invoices

 

Can we have the dates and where

[honeybee13]

Also, the bit about the test case is true - I checked.

moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/04/private-parking-fines-judges-rule-against-motorists

 

The PPCs have latched onto the Beavis case because it's a rare win for them. Someone will explain why it doesn't apply to many of the cases here because I can't remember

 

HB

[Sk1p]

Ah yes. Debt Recovery Plus are owned by the same people as Sussex Security Solutions. Same address and everything.

 

Honeybee13 I'm loving you right now. Truly.

[honeybee13]

Careful.

 

HB

[Sk1p]

Hi dx100uk - it was in Lewes in April 2016

- one period of around ten minutes and twenty mins later a period of around three or four if I remember right.

 

 

The letters only indicate roughly as they start the clock from 0:00

- so a letter has a photo and says you were there from 0:00 to 8.25 for example.

 

I know that they're speculative invoices but this test case thing is worrying me.

I've fronted it out with Parking Eye before and won

but when the courts find in favour of these extortionists, that's very concerning.

What on earth were they thinking of?

[renegadeimp]

Ignore the test case. It has no bearing on your issue at all. They know it, but they love to lie and throw it in every single letter they send out hoping people will pay up.

[Sk1p]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have already donated to the CAG.

 

 

I looked up the founder and learned about the fight he won against bank fees.

 

 

One of my boys had his entire childhood birthday savings taken in overdraft fees from his bank

and the FSA only got a bit of it back. You lot are heroes.

[renegadeimp]

Google parking prankster and have a good read.

[Sk1p]

Thanks, renegadeimp - Parking Prankster is superb. It's a shocking business. How does Government allow them to get away with this?

[renegadeimp]

Long story, but they allow the PPC's to self regulate themselves. The PPC's are pretty much cowboy clampers. But because clamping was made illegal, they adapted.

[ericsbrother]

The court case was PE v Beavis

it was everntually determined that PE didnt have to show a schedule of loss

and could chage £80 as a breach of contract penalty fee as in this instance it wasnt an "unconscionable amount".

 

 

In short commercial contract law was imposed on certain consumer contracts

and if the right authorities and clear contract signs in place

the £80 could be charged for breaching the contract entered into when parking.

 

This is not the same as you case

 

 

the parking co's like to tell everyone that Beavis means they can charge what they like for anything

and they will always be right.

 

 

well, the parking co's went on a court claim feeding frenzy after this

and have lost every one of them that was defended by people who did a bit of homework.

 

the wording at the site where Barry Beavis parked was very clear,

it was a pay and display car park and the parking co had a cast iron contract with the landowner,

not some agent or tenant.

Edited June 19, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[Sk1p]

Thank you so much for your encouragement, it's really appreciated, ericsbrother

[Sk1p]

Hi all, and hopefully ericsbrother, as you've been so helpful before.

 

It was ages and I thought I'd heard the last of them,

but now they seem to have sold the debt on and I've a had few more letters

- remember this is twice in the space of half an hour

- that's how much I didn't see any signage.

 

The letters continued to express that they "may" be asked to take me to court.

This time, the wording has changed - to "we anticipate", and referring to CCJs and court costs.

 

Advice? I've held out this long.

 

Many thanks in advance for your help...

 

Sk1p

[dx100uk]

WHO IS Pulling your chain now

[Sk1p]

Just posted elsewhere that I've had letters today saying that they - right hassle, that is - "anticipate" being instructed to take me to court.

 

Carry on ignoring then?

 

Advice welcome!

 

(I love this forum).

[renegadeimp]

Cant sell a debt on when it didnt exist in the first place Theyre just con artists.

 

Also, anticipate is the same as may.

 

I anticipate i will win the lotto on sat because i believe my choice of numbers are good.. Doesnt mean i will.

[Sk1p]

Right hassle. and yes, it bothers me.

 

renegadeimp - thank you! That's reassuring.

[dx100uk]

wright Hassell you mean

bunch of powerless idiots

read the letters properly....

 

 

they don't say WILL anywhere.

 

 

the only thing you never ignore is a claimform from Northants bulk

it will come in a large brown A4 windows envelope

 

 

and you wont be seeing one of those on this incident

[ericsbrother]

you noticed the key word, they anticipate, NOT they have been instructed. So, same as before- just hot air so ignore.

 

I like the fact they are happy to waste money for nothing on this.

Just posted elsewhere that I've had letters today saying that they - right hassle, that is - "anticipate" being instructed to take me to court.

 

Carry on ignoring then?

 

Advice welcome!

 

(I love this forum).