Park Direct Parking Charge Notice

[sirpercival]

Hi there,

 

Went to visit parents over Christmas and got slapped with a speculative invoice on Boxing day!

 

 

Form filled in below and images of letter attached.

 

1 The date of infringement? 26/12/16

2 Have you yet to appeal to the parking company? Not yet

Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days]

what date is on it? - Yes? It calls itself a parking charge notice rather than an NTK though, dated 25/01/2017

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? Yes - redacted

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)? Not that I can see, no.

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process? Haven't appealed as yet

5 Who is the parking company? Park Direct

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Clement Attlee Estate, Fulham, London (John Smith Avenue) - this is the housing association side of the estate and is privately controlled parking, not the council side.

What advice do you have? The letter suggests that you cannot appeal to them as the driver was given the opportunity to do so, surely that isn't right? Additionally they do not offer the same discounted rate as they do on the windscreen ticket.

My parents are entitled to apply for a permit for the area but neither of them drive and there is no provision for visitors and you have to have everything registered there to get a permit (I don't live there any more!).

 

 

There were ample empty parking spaces available on the estate at the time.

Additionally, those who are fortunate enough to have landed in houses with an off road drive are entitled to use that without a permit and apply for a permit for the surrounding spaces (surely not just?)

 

Any and all help welcomed!

 

Thanks!

[ericsbrother]

the NTK doesnt say what the charge is for,

just that a ticket was slapped on the car- well so what?

 

 

There must be a contractual matter to consider and they dont mention that.

 

Now, what does your parents tenancy say about parking?

When was this scheme introduced?

Card payment charges probably unlawful as well as not a contrctual obligation mentioned on the signage.

 

 

Typical nasty ex clampers chiselling people for more money

[ericsbrother]

forgot to say, need to see pictures of the signage to really get stuck into this

[sirpercival]

Hi ericsbrother,

 

Have asked parents to dig out tenancy agreement - this particular parking regime was introduced in 2015 I believe (parents have been there since '98) after a consultation. Believe there was some kind of enforcement at the start too.

 

I will get an image of the signage and post it as soon as possible.

[ericsbrother]

a consultation is not a change of tenancy agreement.

 

As they have a card payment processing fee you could always pay in cash,

 

 

Send their form back by recorded delivery and when they continue to press for the money you say that it was sent as cash in the letter of the xxth and that you have the RD online proof of delivery so some crook working for them must have trousered the money.

 

 

Just shows what sort of people inhabit the parking enforcement community blah blah your obligation is complete and if they want to continue to call you a liar then perhaps a judge is the best person to decide the rights of the matter.

 

 

( once sued someone for sending me shoddy goods on ebay and then refused to refund and claimed I had switched them .

 

 

The judge was singularly unimpressed with the seller calling me a liar over this matter

 

 

and I was out of court in less than 5 minutes with my money)

[sirpercival]

They do say that you shouldn't pay in cash/send cash in the post,

is it a requirement that they accept alternative payment when they have card fees?

 

 

Is it worth paying a few quid to get insured for the sum of the supposed contents as a way of "proving" what was sent or is that too close to insurance fraud?

[ericsbrother]

I think you are taking it far too seriously if you want to indemnify a bunch of bandits by taking out insurance as you will then be obliged to pay them again.

 

 

My main aim is to lose these outfits money by making them waste their time and energy, not yours.

 

 

If they got things right from the outset none of this would ever be open for discussion

[sirpercival]

Fair enough, still trying to get an image of the signage in case that helps, but otherwise will just post back to them.

[dx100uk]

changed the word fine to speculative invoice in your 1st post

its not a fine!!

 

 

nice avatar...

you heard radio waves in your head...

[sirpercival]

changed the word fine to speculative invoice in your 1st post

its not a fine!!

 

 

nice avatar...

you heard radio waves in your head...

 

Ta! I did indeed, and it all made perfect sense...

[ericsbrother]

can you please get a grip on reality, they arent going to accept that an empty envelope is payment, as amusing as it is. so let us concentrate on what will work and sight of tenancya nd signage please.

Fair enough, still trying to get an image of the signage in case that helps, but otherwise will just post back to them.

[sirpercival]

Sorry it's taken a while - sign attached, can't locate the tenancy agreement unfortunately.

[ericsbrother]

"by enetering or remaining on this land you agree....."

 

what utter twaddle.

 

 

In my opinion that raises an interesting point for distance contracts as there is an assumption as part of this suppoed contractual relation ship that all people are visitors

[sirpercival]

so what do you reckon is best to do?

[ericsbrother]

as these bandits are IPC members they dont bother to use the niceties of the law because their trade body says it doesnt apply to them because they are far too clever to ever be wrong about anything.

 

So, appealing will be a waste of time and effort.

I would be ignoring them and see what they do.

 

 

Yiy will undobtedly get some more letters but use the time to find out more regarding the tenancy and the arrangements of the hiring of these banditd to manage the estate.

 

 

That will have to be something your parents do as they have a reason fro asking for the info and receiving it as it is their tenancy.

 

 

They probably got something but igniored it so get them to ask the HA for it all again without saying exactly why they want the info.

 

It is important that you do not just sit on this and do nothing or you will be getting a court summons as they think that peopel who ignore everything dont bother responding to court claims at first either.

Edited February 6, 2017 by dx100uk

[sirpercival]

Ok,

I have my parents back on looking for the tenancy agreement

- they have a handbook which doesn't mention parking anywhere.

 

 

What exactly do I need to get the 'rents to ask the HA for? the letter confirming that they had engaged the services of a parking enforcement company?

 

You say I should ignore an see what they do, but also not to sit on it

- presume that's if I get any more correspondence?

Of course if I get anything more I'll be straight back on here!

 

Hopefully have some tenancy agreement info in the next day or so.

 

Thanks

[ericsbrother]

your parents could ask to see the copy of the agreement they signed, it is their right to do so.

The handbook carries less weight as it is not an agreement between the parties.

 

As for the agreement between the parking cowboys and the HA, parents just ask their normal point of contact for sight of this agreement (as they may be suing the HA!- that will give them food for thought).

 

 

They will probably get a brush off but they should persist and make it clear that their is a DPA matter that will need dealing with at some time so better that the HA shows them the deal now rather than be forced to later, where the public embarrassment will kick in

[sirpercival]

Tenancy agreement, no mention of parking.

 

Also from tenancy agreement

 

Parents are unhappy to contact HA on this as they are concerned it might harm their tenancy...think am unlikely to be able to persuade otherwise...

 

Does implementing the parking enforcement constitute a change to their agreement? If so this surely can't be made without expressed agreement from the tenants (my parents)?

[ericsbrother]

Then your parents dont deserve your visits.

Yes it does change their tenancy and that will require proper notification to do so which is why I ask for sight of it..

 

read para 1 of the obligations of the HA and it says "not to interfere or dusturb....."

That is enough to warrant a claim against the HA as the parking restrictions cannot apply to tenants, only others who have no interest there (possibly visitors).

 

So how to proceed?

Well, Park Direct are members of the IPC so they are by default, greedy stupid and dont believe that they could ever be wrong becasue John and Will at the IPC say so.

 

 

this makes an appeal pointless but I would do so just to create a paper trail.

 

your appeal shoud say

" the tenancy agreement states that the HA shall not interfere with or disturb the tenants.

Your action is a breach of this tenancy agreement and that agreement has supremacy to your contract with the HA.

 

 

For this reason you will cancel the invoice sent to me or civil action may be taken against you for breach of the DPA and harassment.".

 

Leave it at that for the moment, there are other points to pick up on if they dont accept the appeal.

 

dont appeal to the IAS when they reject your appeal,

they are the same people who run the whole show and are not that good at obeying the solicitors code.

[sirpercival]

Ok, that's great, thanks - will draft a letter saying that and post it next time I'm near a post box!

 

Will be back on here when they reject the appeal...

 

P.S. I often think my parents don't deserve my visits!

[sirpercival]

Hiya,

 

Just got a rejection through the post as attached.

 

It seems odd to me that they deny the opportunity for the keeper to appeal, but in any case - any and all suggestions welcome.

 

Thanks in advance.

[ericsbrother]

the wording of the POFA is vague on this but the intent is clear.

 

 

However, the IPC have told it members to reject appeals based on this in an attempt to circumvent the POFA as they know better than parliament and judges are stupid as well for believing whinging motorists

 

Dont worry, you have created a paper trail that will make them look stupid

[sirpercival]

Presume I wait for them to try take it further and come back here then?

[ericsbrother]

yes,

no point appealing to the firm of solicitors who own the IPC and run IAS as one, their selling point to the parking companies is that they dont allow appeals to succeed, thus boosting revenues.

 

 

However,

they do try and persuade the parking co's to use them to take you to court but lose defended claims as they are deficient in their presentation.

 

 

This makes it all a bit of a long battle so ingore them for now and respond when Gladstones or BWL start sending the threatograms, you then create a paper trail that sinks their claim.

 

 

One way is to offer tyo go to an independent arbitrator such as Ombudsmanservices Ltd.

They wont accept that but as they have to offer arbitration before court action they then get stuck.

 

 

They of course have their own scheme but you dont have to use it and it fails to meet any useful threshold of impartiality or understanding of the law