Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
    • Thanks for all the suggestions so far I will amend original WS and send again for review.  While looking at my post at very beginning when I submitted photos of signs around the car park I noticed that it says 5 hours maximum stay while the signage sent by solicitor shows 4 hours maximum stay but mine is related to electric bay abuse not sure if this can be of any use in WS.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Parking ticketing Limited - now sent to PCS parking collection Services


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2765 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

On 18/04/2016 I received a PCN from Parking ticketing limited whilst parked in a private car park. The notice was issued on the grounds that I did not have a valid permit to park in the car park. I appealed the PCN on the grounds that:

 

1) I had a visitor permit issued to me at the barrier (entrance to the car-park), by their person operating the barrier.

2) I also cited that the PCN contained incorrect details of the vehicle ie the stated colour of vehicle was WRONG which rendered the PCN invalid.

3) The amount of the fine £60 was excessive.

 

They rejected my appeal saying that a landmark case on 4th Sept 2015 was handed down in favour of parking operators,

 

I missed date for a POPLA appeal (due to serious family illness issues) and then received a letter demanding £100

- I wrote to them again citing that I had a visitor permit and invalid information on the PCN.

 

I then received a letter from PCS (Parking Collection Services on behalf of Parking ticketing Limited) demanding £120

- they stated on the back of their letter that I could appeal the (now £120) charge if I did not believe I should have received it and that they could cancel the ticket if they upheld my appeal.

 

I explained the situation over again to them explaining that Parking ticketing Ltd had refused to engage with me again and had not answered any of my grounds for appeal.

 

PCS rejected my appeal to them, and furthermore said that I could not appeal against the £120 fine levied by them as I had missed my original date of appeal to POPLA when I wrote to Parking ticketing Ltd back in April

 

- they did not issue a reference number for me to appeal to POPLA against their £120 fine even though it stated on the back of their fine that if they rejected my appeal they would issue me with a POPLA reference.

 

my question and need for advice now is

have I got to pay this £120 to Parking Collection Services?

 

They have now given me until 28/07/2016 to pay £120 to them,

 

I did not think this thing would go the distance,

how can I fight these people now?

please someone give me some advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore the case they cite. It has no bearing or relevanc eon your situation. Sadly many PPC's dont care at all, and just put this as a default part of their reply hoping you wont challenge it.

 

It is also NOT a fine and never will be. I dont know why you are so worried. Theres nothing they can do to you

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

First of all, ignore any talk of the Beavis judgement. This applied to one particular car park and would not likely affect other car parks.

 

You say you had a permit. Can you prove it?

 

PCS are a trading name of Debt Recovery Plus (DR+) so you can safely ignore them.

 

PTL can take action if they choose but in the last 7 months, they have taken a total of 7 cases to court. Whether these cases are won or lost, we have no idea.

 

The only time to be concerned is if a Letter Before Claim/Action or a court claim arrives.

 

If you can, get some pictures of the signage at the car park then post them here in pdf format.

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

Well, as you can now see wanting to have closure of these matters

do exactly the opposite so if you get another "ticket" in this manner

 

you would be wise to do nothing until you have taken advice first as most parking companies cannot get the procedures right and thus negate any claim.

 

As you appealed this as the driver they can now ignore your appeals knowing that the law does not protect you.

 

Having said that, it them all boils down to contract law and despite what they say if you had a permit then any claim around the use of this is spurious as the operator had the opportunity to tell you what other conditions applied to parking when they hand this to you. they cant just make things up afterwards.

 

You can ignore them for the moment as they arent going to admit they are a bunch of rogues and chancers but they are wrong in what they say about the landmark case as already stated and also about the appeals process as they havent followed the rules in this regard so they wont want to have that questioned too deeply..

 

The debt collection people are in fact the same mob using a different crayon so you can ignore them as they dont have any legal interest in this matter.

 

Keep yopur paperwork safe and let us know if you get any more begging letters from anyone and we will advise of what to do then (if anything)

Link to post
Share on other sites

just remember its not a fine

its a speculative invoice

and

any DCA that pokes their head out can be totally ignored

they are not BAILIFFS

and have no such legal powers

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for taking the time to reply to my post

- a lot of your replies seem to have the same consensus of opinion.

 

I will go to the car park again and take pictures of the signage and post it as a pdf (as suggested).

 

I also agree with "ericsbrother" saying that they had the opportunity when they gave me the visitors permit to tell me about other parking conditions applied in the car park

- not just suddenly come up with something else as and when it suited them,

I also mentioned this in my letter to them - they totally ignored me .

 

I still have the visitors permit and am fast creating a folder of all the correspondence relating to this,

my bad or their's as I tend to be a bit compulsive when it comes to keeping records.

I will be posting a photo of the signage as soon as I can return to the car park.

Edited by Chiketa
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you kept the permit. No matter what they try next, they cannot state you parked without a permit.

 

If by chance there were two areas in the car park with different signage, for example, you were given a permit to park in a certain area and you parked in the other area, the signs will put that to rest.

If only more people kept things like permits, paid for parking stickers and the like, companies like this would soon go bust.

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

I have been back to the car-park and talked to some of the companies and people operating the car park - I have also taken some pictures of the parking bay and the signage.

 

PTL - started operating in this car park from what I can gather, between 6 - 12mnths ago. Alliance parking also operate the car park (my visitors parking permit was issued by alliance parking). From what I can gather PTL comes in through the back gate (automatic barrier) and tickets cars parked in the visitors bay saying that they do not have a valid permit if.......they deem them to be parked without a valid PTL. According to them my car was 15 seconds over the limit. I have uploaded the pictures (correctly I hope), of the marked bays that I am allowed to park in using my visitors parking permit and the pictures of the signage from PTL ltd.

 

Wow - learning a lot about coverting files from jpg to pdf - the Jpg of the visitors permit is not converting today but I will continue to try and upload that later, as I just wanted to post these pictures of the car park. All other bays in this car park are numbered and assigned to the various companies, I have spoken to the company I visit and they are saying that even some of the directors have received PCNs - seems to be a general atmosphere of fear amongst them!!!!

IMAG0397.pdf

IMAG0401.pdf

IMAG0400.pdf

IMAG0395.pdf

IMAG0398.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I am confused!

This is ONE car park?

This car park is run by two separate companies?

You say they got you for parking without a permit?

You then say you were 15 seconds over the limit!

 

If PTL firstly said you had no valid permit and are now saying you were 15 seconds over the limit, then they are out of luck. There must be a clear reason for the ticket.

 

15 seconds over the time limit is no grounds to issue as the BPA are stating that people are given a ten minute grace period

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

the max stay signs arent part of the contractual conditions as they are not on the sign at the entrance to the car park.

 

This means that they cant claim that you have breached the contract by parking for more than 2 hours.

 

You need to make sure that your colleaguse arent encouraging these bandits by paying them money they arent entitled to.

 

I would also bet that there is no contract between the claiming company and the landowner but rather they ahve signed up with an agent or management co, which makes their contract worthless

 

. Also, as you have a permit scheme there is a consideration between yourself and the landowner which is superior to there scribbles.

this also allows you to individually negotiate your terms so the parking co will never know what these terms are unless it asks the landowner.

You arent obliged to tell them, let them lose a fortune finding out for themselves.

 

The real problem of all of these private parking arrangements is that once a compnay has been proved to be dishonest they are still allowed to carry on as they please where it should be that if they falsely issue a ticket they have to show that any other they have issued prior to and after that event is valid or they face prosecution for fraud.

 

This will never happen though because no-one wants toend the money making schemes of people like PE who are owned by the Govt's biggest outsourcing company, who also deal with the payroll of many councils so that stops them getting involved.

 

Like the banks, they are too big to fail ( well, at least if they are aloowed to a great numver of senior members of the establishment wilol suffer humiliation so pressure will be brought to bear on anyone trying to take them on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This parking situation is confusing to say the least.

I could not get my head around it,

 

the visitors parking permit (which I was given on entry to the car park states that I should only park in the bays marked "Max 2 HRS"),

 

Oh I forgot to mention we also have to sign a book which says who we are visiting on the site BEFORE we are given the visitors permit.

 

What I could not understand is why PTL then said that I did not have a valid permit for parking there.

 

This is cut from their letter to me when they rejected my appeal:

 

"We have considered your reason for appeal but unfortunately the operative has to see clearly a valid permit in the windscreen when inspecting

 

. This may include a location number, vehicle registration number, expiry date, security features.

 

By seeing the permit in the windscreen the warden can confirm that the vehicle is entitled parking at the location.

 

We appreciate that you are a holder of a Visitors permit with an expiry time to which you had over spent by 1o mins looking at the warden’s photographs.

We also like to advise that 10 minutes’ grace period given is actually for Pay & Display Sites"

 

They then went on to say about the Landmark judgement of 4th November 2015. still trying to upload the visitors permit...

Link to post
Share on other sites

lets take the last bit first.

 

The landmark judgement said that a parking co doesnt have to justify its charges

as its true expenditure when certain other conditions are met

and they included VERY clear signage of what is allowed and what isnt

also the parking co paid the landowner a considerable amount to be there.

 

this wont apply to your case

but they hope that you cannot tell Stork from butter

let alone a contractual condition from a breach of contract.

 

They are a bunch of wazzocks

so you can ignore them

or write back and tell them that there has been no breach of contract so they can get stuffed..

Link to post
Share on other sites

They must have a desk solely dealing with 'whatever rules they can make up for the day'

 

I would rather than say no breach, just a simple statement that you will no longer enter any further correspondence with them but any legal action they may take will be fully defended and a counterclaim made for costs due to vexatious litigation.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello, just a quick update on my situation with Parking Ticketing Ltd.

 

 

I am now ignoring them for the time been and waiting for their next move.

 

 

I was supposed to pay Parking Collection on the 28th July 2016,

it is now 10 days later and I have not had any reaction to my non-payment yet....

 

 

.....I have not been back to the carpark since last week,

 

 

but will be returning soon,

 

 

as I do use one of the companies in that complex.

Edited by Chiketa
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello Again,

 

 

This weekend I received a letter from another collection Agency (please see attached scan).

 

 

They seemed to have taken over from PCS and are giving me until Bank Holiday Monday to pay the new amount of £149.00

or they will advise Parking Ticketing Ltd to take me to court.

 

It seems that every time a new agency takes over they slap another £20 onto the amount.

Now it is 'Debt Recovery' will this affect my credit rating?

 

Any advice on how I should proceed,

do I open a dialogue with these people?

 

 

if so any pointers on how I should approach it?

 

 

Has anybody had a similar thing happen to them

and is it common for them to hand things on from one Agency to another?

16.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

DR+ usually appear towards the end of a parking issue, I doubt very much if you have anything to worry about. They can advise all they like, it doesn't mean Parking Ticketing are going to take this to court.

 

Definitely don't open a dialogue until the experts have commented. :)

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, good old DR+. The parking companies pet poodle.

 

DR can recommend anything they like. They could just as easily, "We recommend the company removes the first born child." That's all it is, a recommendation! Other than that, DR+ can do nothing.

 

You were parked in a bay with a permit with a alleged overstay of 15 second. I cannot see any judge in the land find against you should PTL try it on. Your permit stated to park in the 2 hour bay which you did therefore I cannot see any claim.

 

I would love to see this in front of a judge who would likely rip PTL a new one :madgrin:

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

I've taken the attachment down as it shows ref numbers

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

only an unsatisfied CCJ can affect your credit rating. These dca's have no powers to do anything more than send out letters. if they turn up on your doorstep you may use necessary force to eject them from your property so they dont actually do that, they dont get paid per bruise!

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for your replies - and sorry my reply is so late in the evening, I was working very late tonight and just sat down at my home computer.

 

So very helpful indeed and I had a really good belly laugh at some of the posts (although there was serious contents written into them).

 

Well I'm glad I don't have to explain the whole thing to yet another agent of PTL., I suppose that they use every threat they can to frighten people into parting with hard earned money. Thank you for taking down the my letter, I did try to take out the info which I thought was non-relevant but did not think about the ref. numbers.

 

I will endeavour to keep the forum informed of any other developments!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad cag helped

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi there, received this letter yesterday from DRP, its entitled "Notice of intended court action" then in the second paragraph it says to prevent this case being recommended to the creditors..... they go on to urge me to make contact with them without delay etc.

 

Do you know if they are members of the BPA as they stamp their letters with the logo. They have now given me until next week!!!

Image.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard DR+ letter. They are members of the BPA.

 

As mentioned previously, the Beavis case will have no bearing on your case as the scenarios are different. They have also added on unlawful fees. DR+ generally do not do court but leave it to the original parking company to do so. DR+ are pretty much like debt collectors for rent.

 

They could give you until next year and it wouldn't make much difference. You had a permit. You parked correctly. They will never be able to prove a loss.

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

  • 3 weeks later...

well - the Saga continues,

the last payment date for DRP has passed and they are now offering me a REDUCED PAYMENT OFFER to avoid Court action, (please see attached).

 

 

They have outlined to me that this is know as 'pre-action protocol' which they will demonstrate to the judge that they have tried to settle the matter by making this offer.

 

 

In your experience is this what they normally do before court action?

This letter reads like they really intend to take me to court?

They're even offering a short-term payment plan!!!!

 

I recently saw a programme called 'Rip off Britain' where there was a similar case to mine,

where the man had put the ticket in the windscreen and the parking firm viewed it as invalid

- after various exchanges they threatened him with the fact that it could go to court and his future creditworthiness etc. could be affected. He got scared and paid,

 

 

the programme told him it was unlikely he would get his money back even if they tried to help him as the parking company already had his money!!!

DRP-Sept2016.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...