Jump to content


First Parking PCN -Tunbridge Wells Hospital - Now DP+


glybera
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1902 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

Hi,

 

I recently lost an appeal via POPLA for a PCN.

 

I never received a reminder with regards to the PCN having to be paid

(I do have issues with mail in my flat, so things occasionally get lost etc).

 

The original cost would have been £80.

I now have a letter from Debt Recovery Plus stating that I owe £160.

 

When I go back to the PCN website to pay the charge, it states it has been passed onto debt recovery.

 

I know in the past the advise has been to ignore.

However, a friend of mine did this continually and eventually had bailiffs round clamping cars etc.

 

I have appealed tons of tickets and won via POPLA so am a bit lost at this stage.

 

Is my only option now to pay the £160 to DRP?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is my only option now to pay the £160 to DRP?

 

No it's not your only option, we prefer you to pay nothing. :) DR+ are usually the end of the road for these situations, but the guys will tell you more when they can get here.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dr+ are not bailiffs

id suggest that story from your friend was from years and years ago?

 

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

why £160? beacuase DR+ have added a big helping for themselves as they think anyone daft enough to pay thej will pay almost any amount as well. they are not bailiffs, they have no right to ask for more than the contractual sum and in their case they are not registered with the FCA so they cant legally take your money on behalf of anyone anyway.

Ignore DCA's completely and by ignore I mean ignore

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for your replies guys. I have attached a copy of the letter (just to make sure I'm not missing anything). I'd be very grateful if you could scrutinise.

 

If I am going to ignore would the best port of call be to write to the owner of the car park (a hospital in this case) stating I don't owe any money and also checking if the owner has given authority to First parking to bring legal action against me? (to make myself completely bullet proof). (I have partially gone through this process with a failed POPLA appeal).

 

I presume I should make no contact with DR+ at all as doing so makes me more vulnerable.

 

Finally, through what process could this potentially evolve into a county court claim (and what can I do to prevent it)?

 

Thanks in advance

DR+.png

Edited by glybera
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread title say parking eye

Letter says first parking

Which is it?

 

And what hospital?

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

what part of ignore DR+ is not clear?

 

If you want to know what happens next

then you need to tell us everything about the event,

the date,

time,

what the alleged breach was,

how you were notified,

what other correspondence did you receive,

what did your send,

what did the rejection of your appeal say,

what did you say to POPLA

and what did they say.

 

In reality,

the chances of the parking co getting everything right was slim

but since you obviouly got in touch with them

you have more than likely removed the protection of law you had as the keeper of the vehicle

so we will need to find other reasons as to why they shouldnt get a penny.

 

As for writing to the hospital,

forget it unless there is evidence that the signage is entrapment

as the hospital makes money out of this

so why should they help you to reduce their income?

Link to post
Share on other sites

what part of ignore DR+ is not clear?

 

If you want to know what happens next

then you need to tell us everything about the event,

the date,

time,

what the alleged breach was,

how you were notified,

what other correspondence did you receive,

what did your send,

what did the rejection of your appeal say,

what did you say to POPLA

and what did they say.

 

In reality,

the chances of the parking co getting everything right was slim

but since you obviouly got in touch with them

you have more than likely removed the protection of law you had as the keeper of the vehicle

so we will need to find other reasons as to why they shouldnt get a penny.

 

As for writing to the hospital,

forget it unless there is evidence that the signage is entrapment

as the hospital makes money out of this

so why should they help you to reduce their income?

 

Firstly thanks for the update of the thread title. Here is a summary:

 

18/5/16:

I work cross site between two hospitals maidstone and tunbridge wells.

I unfortunately had to park in a staff disabled space as no other spaces were available when I arrived despite circling for ages

(if I had waited for a space [this would have been futile]

I would have been late for my operating list i.e. impacting patients.

I then received a PCN.

I appealed to First Parking on the same day citing the above reasons.

 

19/5/16: First parking reject the above appeal and provide POPLA number.

I then appeal to POPLA with the following arguments:

1. The charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by FP,

contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997.

PCN is considered a penalty,

and FP have alleged breach of T&Cs without quantifying alleged loss.

 

2. FP don't own the land, thus they cannot legally offer parking spaces or allege a contract with 3rd party customers to offer parking. Thus, FP need to prove they have legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

 

3. FP are mere agents working for the owner & their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v- HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber covering this issue with compelling statements of fact regarding such business models.

 

4. As there is no contract with the landowner/ occupier entitling FP to levy above charges or issue PCNs.

FP need to therefore show POPLA a contract with the owner/occupier for POPLA adjudicator to look at.

 

5. Even a basic contract mentioning PCNs is negated by FP's lack of ownership of the land,

thus any contract only exists on an agency basis between FP and owner/occupier

THEREFORE it cannot have anything that FP can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent to impact 3rd party customers.

 

6. POFA 2012 states that operator must identify creditor.

The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any contract was made.

FP haven’t done this, contravening POFA requirements to allow recovery of charge from the keeper.

 

I should add that I have used the above spiel in every PCN I have appealed successfully

(including 2 more at tunbridge wells hospital),

 

 

POPLA then rejected the appeal 15/7/16.

They rejected on all grounds.

 

 

I should add that the alleged contract was scant in detail and did not state that FP could pursue me for charges/ take legal action. Nonetheless I lost the appeal.

 

I then received a letter a few days ago from DR+ for recovery of charges.

 

Sorry for the long post.

 

Any help as appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

taking point 6 first,

you appealed so they dont have to rely on the POFA.

 

point 5- they dont need to own the land,

just have a contract with the landowner that assigns rights to them.

 

Point 3 VCS won tbeir appeal and it concerns VAT and not a contractual obligation or breach of contract.

The wording on the sign is critical here as it must be damages for breach of contract and not a contractual sum.

 

 

They often fall down here because when they sue they claim monies for breach of contract and then add £54 fees as a contractual sum, which is cobblers. it is one or the other, not both.

 

 

if a contractual sum they DO owe the VAT Not worth arguing this point with them, only with a court.

 

Point 4- POPLA was set up by the parking co's and they are very lax in what proof they ask for so dont be disappointed if that goes against you because they have told POPLA they have a contract but wont show it to anyone.

 

Point 1 Beavis v PE lost that argument , as long as the chage is not "unconscionable" then they dont have to show their workings out .

 

 

This was read by the parking co's as a green light for charges of £100 and claim Beavis result menas they are bullet proof.

Not so but you wont change their mindset, that is how they make money, lies , innuemdo threats etc.

 

you still ignore anything DR+ say as they have no interest or authority in any matter ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailiffs??

Where's that come from

Nothing at all to do with them

 

Never will be

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

they dont, #they just massage the details of what could happen in their letters in an attempt to make them look like they actually have something to say.

 

Now read my post again, DR+ have nothing to do with anything, cannot do anything and have no say in what others can or cant do so IGNORE them and when you have done that, ignore them some more.

 

They rely entirely on your ignorance to get anywhere.

 

Thanks. Just out of interest how do repeat DR+ letters evolve into county court claims, bailiffs knocking on doors etc?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Give it another week or two you will get another letter from DRP offering a discount. Ignore.

 

 

After that possibly one headed notification of intention to commence legal proceedings

(they cannot commence anything only the car park operator can do that). Ignore.

 

 

Then you will receive a letter from Zenith Collections,

which if you look closely you will see is a trading name of DRP and is also to be ignored.

And every other Zenith letter after that, they will stop eventually.

 

In short ignore all apart from genuine court papers which if you receive you need to get these guys here on the case with you soonest.

 

Warmest Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...