UKPC parking invoice - tesco Faraday retail park,Coatbank Street, Coatbridge. ML5 3SQ scotland

[Like-Im-Being-Ripped-Off]

22nd June 2009, 08:38 I've just received my 10th letter and this one is also from Credit Security Ltd. It says that:

1. You have ignored repeated applications for settlement.

2. You have had the benefit of goods/services supplied for which you have not paid. (I've had no goods or services!!!)

 

Unless we hear from you within seven days with a payment and repayment proposal we may without further notice:

 

a. INSTRUCT ONE OF OUR LOCAL COLLECTORS TO CALL UPON YOU FOR PAYMENT.

 

b. PROCEED WITH LEGAL ACTION FOR RECOVERY THROUGH AYLESBURY COUNTY COURT.

 

IT IS IN YOUR OWN INTEREST TO MAKE AN ARRANGEMENT FOR SETTLEMENT NOW BY COMPLETING THE PORTION BELOW AND RETURNING THE ENTIRE LETTER TO HIS OFFICE.

 

Has anyone had one of these and do I need to worry that they actually will go to court?

 

 

Hi Carlanon,

Re: your post back in june see above.

 

This is your 10th letter and now you got your 11th letter today,

sorry fella your forgetting how many letters you had that's bad, you would think they would give up now.

 

Im still on my 1st one. so it's a year to go by the sounds of this.

And i was not the DRIVER either.

[Carlanon]

Aaaaarrrrgggghhhh. Its the weight of all those letters and now not knowing whether to expect one every 14 days or 25 days or, and (I can dream) maybe never again! I'm wondering whether or not the next one will come from their Solicitors as threatened and who their Solicitors will turn out to be. Ah well at least life isn't dull while there are these gits out there.

[Like-Im-Being-Ripped-Off]

Carlanon

 

Atleast if they keep coming you will be able to wallpaper your shed with them all.

[Al27]

Just think how much money they're wasting and how desperate they are for the cash.

 

It's starting to get funny now. What will letter 12 contain?? The anticipation!

[Guest overmydeadbody]

Just remember, do not give in

[Guest overmydeadbody]

Dont give up, if necessary forward all letters to the police and explain that you would like the company investigated for attempting to obtain money by deception and harassment. Always stay one step ahead and definitely do not crack.

[Conniff]

The latest in my saga. I've just received my 10th letter. Once again this is from Credit Security Ltd and says: "Although every opportunity has been given to you to settle your account in a reasonable manner, you have continually chosen to disregard our communictions. We are not prepared to tolerate any further delays in this matter and would now formally advise you that our Client intends to obtain judgement against you in the County Court and if nevessary apply for an Attachment of Earnings to ensure full settlement of this account. If you wish to avoid this action, it is in your own interest to forward a payment immediately, together with a firm promise of regular payments in settlement of your account. We do not intend to continually remind you of your obligation and therefore will place your account with our Solicitors if no response is received within the next SEVEN DAYS". I just wondered what an Attachment of Earnings is really. If they really don't intend to continually remind me you'd think they'd just stop sending their letters eh. Interestingly, they've allowed 25 days between letters this time instead of their usual 14 days.

 

They can only go for that (a deduction from your pay by your employer) if you default on a payment of any court order should they get one.

[m3rzs]

i read on here the other day that someone intends to fight back via a web site. just wondering if anybody started one. these **** bags need stopping once and for all. to many frightened people paying up.

[m3rzs]

just been lookibg on ukpc web page, they are trying to give the law on parking tickets. this is wot is wrote

The Extent Of Bad Advice

 

We are constantly amazed at the lengths people will goto to avoid paying correctly issued parking charges. In many cases the amount of time and effort they put into trying to avoid payment far outweighs the original charge when time, effort, stress and the eventual court hearing is taken into account - We are not stating a parking charge should be paid if it has been wrongly issued but if a person genuinely feels the ticket is wrong they should appeal and state the reasons why without delay so it can be investigated and cancelled where appropriate.

We experienced an individual "David Keates" from Telford, Shropshire who parked on private land belonging to a client - In order to try and avoid paying the charge he stated that he was a police officer on official business.

It actually transpired he was a civilian employee working for the police and definitely not on any type of police business at all, he then posted on various internet forums that are setup to assist people to avoid paying parking charges or other types or tickets/parking penalties using his computer within the police headquarters where he worked.

Mr Keates was so vocal in one of these forums he called his colleagues employed as "PCSOs" sloppy and even advised one person to sue colleagues of a neighbouring police force.

A formal complaint was made to the professional standards of the relevant police force who immediately suspended Mr Keates and due to the seriousness of Mr Keates actions they were considering disciplinary action that could have resulted in his dismissal from a well paid, professional job within the Police Service - Mr Keates decided to resign.... All for a £60 parking charge correctly applied to his vehicle.

Mr David Keates still gives advice on various internet forums under the guise of leegomery16 and Southpaw82 (however like many of these armchair lawyers he may have many identities from which he gives bad advice).

UPDATE: (July 2008) Mr Keates is such an amazing lawyer - he has contacted a solicitor to ask us to remove the story above (surely, if he was that knowledgeable of the law he would have taken legal action himself) ... We have refused as everything in the above statement is CORRECT ...

We recently had a person who refused to take responsibility for a parking charge, stating he knew nothing about it, he lent his car to various people and he could not state who was driving or in fact if it was even his vehicle - We produced a witness (the ticket issuer who described and then identified the defendant) and CCTV at the court.

The defendant was ordered to pay over £200 for the original ticket and costs, he was also reported and charged by the police for a criminal offence of lying in court - this case is now progressing through the court system but again it shows that a person trying to avoid a correctly issued parking charge resulted in the ticket costing more than 3 times the original amount and he will probably receive a criminal record.

the link is

UK Parking Control - Bad Advice

[lamma]

Perky's words. Either they stole it from his website or there is a connection between the companies. Which do you think it is ?

[happyendless]

My Mother has had a long saga with one of the parking companies who are now quoting the following story about a sucessful case

 

Oldham News | News Headlines | Parking penalty just, judge rules - Chronicle Online

 

This is causing her quite a bit of concern. Any thoughts?

 

It´s a bit worrying that the companies now have case law to back up their cases.......

[jkdd77]

My Mother has had a long saga with one of the parking companies who are now quoting the following story about a sucessful case

 

Oldham News | News Headlines | Parking penalty just, judge rules - Chronicle Online

 

This is causing her quite a bit of concern. Any thoughts?

 

It´s a bit worrying that the companies now have case law to back up their cases.......

 

It's not case law. County court cases never set case law, or any other form of binding precedent, and this case appears to have been wrongly decided based on a misapplication of law by the judge.

 

The House of Lords, on the other hand, ruled in the case of Dunlop vs New Motor Co. (1915) that penalty charges are unlawful, Now that is case law, and does set a binding precedent for lower courts.

 

"It will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach."

 

Pretty much all PPC invoices fall into this category. The very fact that they lie and falsely claim CPS vs Thomas to be case law tells you all you need to know about the strength of their case. If they had an actual case, they wouldn't need to lie about non-existent precedents, would they?

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Perky has been lying about Combined Parking Solutions v Stephen Thomas from day one. He sees it as some great victory over his enemies but the only reason he won at all is the online forum posting by Mr Thomas contradicting his evidence in court. Ah well, its nice Perky gets some reward for all the long hours he puts in trolling and lurking on here.

 

Regards David Keates he was apparently a lawyer and Perky has a rabid jealousy of him, as is evident from the nasty website (very fitting for Perky). Now, given that Mr Keates was a lawyer, do you think Perky fancied his chances to take him on in court and silence his critics once and for all. Err no. Once a coward, always a coward.

[Mr lex]

Just subbing guys

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Perky's words. Either they stole it from his website or there is a connection between the companies. Which do you think it is ?

 

This from the UKPC website under "Legalities":

Charges issued by CPS are based on agreement to pay a set parking charge...

 

When a ticket is issued on behalf of CPS we ensure ...

 

CPS are one of the few companies that rigoursly pursue ...

 

The statement that parking companies never win cases is a total myth and we produce a small sample of cases taken to court by CPS...

 

Now is it just me or do UKPC not seem to know what their company initials are? Its U - K - P - C ok, have you got it now? How hard can it be to remember your own name?

[lamma]

typical PPC 'care'. I can imagine a special version of The Apprentice just for PPC owners. That would be quite fun !

[m3rzs]

Perky's words. Either they stole it from his website or there is a connection between the companies. Which do you think it is ?

, hi lamma, what i think is a professional company (which ukpc is supposed to be lol) would not name or talk about people on net, who they had succesfully beat in court. this doent look very good to the customer. just scare mongering i imagine

[m3rzs]

this ia a extract off a web page i was looking at. the link to the web page is at bottem of page. hope it helps. TAKE A LOOK AT THE HIGHLIGHTED RED PARAGRAPH.

PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES RELY ON THE LAW OF CONTRACT

 

And while contract law can be a minefield of offer, acceptance, terms, implied terms and clauses, it can be surprisingly easy to understand in terms of every day matters such as this.

 

Essentially when a driver of a vehicle drives into a car park and parks his car he is implied to accept the offer for parking on the terms of the offeror (the parking company or land owner). A contract is formed and therefore the contract can be broken (or breached).

 

The Private Parking Company (PPC) must make the terms clear to the user of the car park. Therefore they are obliged to place ample and appropriate signage about the car park to make those persons using the facilities aware of the terms. The signs must be clear and unambiguous and it cannot be obscured, faded, covered up or in any way difficult or impossible to read and understand. Often times those terms will include a provision that if you over stay you will be penalised to the tune of £50, £70 or whatever. They may also include a clause on clamping (I will not be dealing with the issue of clamping in this article). These signs are usually displayed at the pay stations (for pay and display) and for other car parks at the entrance and at intervals about the land. If the car park is improperly signed then immediately the PPC will be in difficulty. Thus when the driver parks the vehicle in the car park and pays or otherwise he accepts by way of his actions and a contract is formed between he and the owner of the land.

 

ONLY THE DRIVER AND THE OWNER OF THE LAND ARE A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT UNLESS THE PARKING COMPANY ACTS AS THEIR AGENT

 

Therefore should you receive an INVOICE from a PPC as the keeper of a vehicle and you do not know who was driving, I suggest you tell them this and tell them not to contact you again. You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any information to the PPC. Refuse to do so.

 

If you were the driver of the vehicle then that will move the goalposts a little. I would never advise anyone to lie in a document that could be used in any future proceedings. Thus I cannot advocate that any person write to the PPC and deny being the driver if this they actually were the driver. That said you are still under no obligation to incriminate yourself or to provide the PPC with any information whatsoever. The onus is on the claimant in a civil action to prove their case. As in criminal matters the defendant will retain their right not to incriminate themselves or provide evidence against themselves. I advise that if you were the driver that you ask the PPC to provide proof of who the driver was, being very careful at every stage in communication NOT to offer that you were. Should they be unable to prove who the driver was or unwilling then I would suggest that you write to them telling them never to contact you again.

Private parking tickets

[Al27]

Two problems:

 

• gives the impression that you can reason with these people. Telling them you weren't the driver won't make a blind bit of difference with regards to making them stop sending you letters

• they WANT you to contact them so that they can weigh you up. They hate is when there's no response - sending letters with no reply is like banging their head against a brick wall for them

[m3rzs]

Two problems:

 

• gives the impression that you can reason with these people. Telling them you weren't the driver won't make a blind bit of difference with regards to making them stop sending you letters

• they WANT you to contact them so that they can weigh you up. They hate is when there's no response - sending letters with no reply is like banging their head against a brick wall for them

i was just showing that, what is being said is quite true, i collect from ukpc office in merry hill nr dudley. women there addmitted that they try and rip off the driver, and carnt touch the reg keeper.

**** bags :grin:

[sick_of_leeches]

Two problems:

 

• gives the impression that you can reason with these people. Telling them you weren't the driver won't make a blind bit of difference with regards to making them stop sending you letters

• they WANT you to contact them so that they can weigh you up. They hate is when there's no response - sending letters with no reply is like banging their head against a brick wall for them

 

 

This is the only thing im slightly worried about though. I have contacted a debt collection firm and spoke with them. Dunno if i said anything that would imply i was the driver, just told them what the supposed offence was and that id disputed it in a letter to UKPC.

[letshelp]

This is the only thing im slightly worried about though. I have contacted a debt collection firm and spoke with them. Dunno if i said anything that would imply i was the driver, just told them what the supposed offence was and that id disputed it in a letter to UKPC.

There is no 'offence' associated with private parking, it is all part of a [problem]. DO NOT make any further contact with these clowns you will only encourage them to contact you further.

regards

[lisaann72red]

I had a parking fine from Tesco Pitsea from UKPC for not parking within a bay.

I was driving but I am not the registered Owner.

I have followed advice and have not made any contact with the company by phone or by letter.

 

I have received three letters from the parking firm

1 letter from Roxburge

The latest letter is from Graham White Solicitors

stating Notice of intended Legal Action.

 

You were written to by UK PARKING CONTROL LTD and their agent Roxburge requesting the settlement of a parking contravention charge notice. Due to the absence of payment, or a valid appeal, our client has instructed us to proceed to legal action to recover the amount due.

 

Therefore, it is a legal requirement to send a notice of INTENDED LITIGATION before legal proceedings are isseud in the County Court. This letter fulfils this requirement.

 

Cost total Addtional Costs £142.25 broken down but I havent showed the workings out.

 

Any judgement registered against you could seriously affect your chances of obtaining credit in the future, as this information can be made available to any interested parties via the register of judgements, orders and fines, and remains there for 6 years.

 

In the event of a judgement order not being adhered to, we may instruct bailiffs to attend at your address who are authorised to seize goods for sale at public auction.

 

Blah Blah......

 

Could they send in the baillifs legally?

I feel a bit unsure now. And really need anyone to tell me I am still doing the right thing not responding at all?

Really need a confidence boost so as not to cave in and pay.

Thanks

 

Lisa:???:

[dpick]

Normal clap trap ignore.

 

2 letters from PPC

2 letters from DCA (next desk)

2 letters from solicitor (next desk but one)

 

Or they could be all from the same desk just using different headed paper.

 

dpick

[lamma]

check out the addresses for G White and Roxburghe. we have seen an awful lot of their tat.