Letters To Private Parking Companies... A suggestion

[jojo69]

Hiya, yes its definately a free car park - used for Benson Beds, A Bike Shop and PC retail company. I've paid them one payment of £10 and I'm going to send them a letter tomorrow saying they are not getting anymore and the ten pounds should cover their admin costs but they won;t be getting a penny more. I'm so glad people like you are out there with web site like this to advise us blissfully ignorant people - not so anymore, got my fighting hat on.

[Rob S]

Good for you Jo! At least you have only paid out £10 to these clowns. If you really wanted to be troublesome you could write to them and ask for your £10 back!!

[Guardian Angel]

let us know how you get on

[jojo69]

I'll let you know what happens next - thanks

[DeafSteve]

Almost two months since I wrote the letter on page 1 of this thread. No reponse from UKPC. Perhaps they've given up, or perhaps, it's just too damned quiet.

[jojo69]

Just received a letter today from UK P.A.O. Ltd saying they received my letter saying they were not getting another penny out of me and I quoted a few sentences I picked up from these threads. They replied saying I was parked on private land which stipulates terms & conditions and I broke these. They are demanding the remainder of the charge I owe at £50.00. Also failure to make payment will result in further charges accuring at the rate of £3.00 a day reverting back to April when the ticket was issued. The closing sentence reads "Your comments have been noted and will be held on file until this matter proceeds to County Court.

Mmmm.... any suggestions for a reply to these horrible people. I have found determination not to be ripped off but as a single parent, blonde and female (lol) is does worry me a little.

Jo

[Andy7807]

Wait for it to go to County Court, unlikely that it will, they just want to scare you. If it did go to County Court and they found a debt is outstanding (again unlikely), you would still have the chance to pay it before any recovery or ccj's are issued. Don't worry.

[Rob S]

They are scaremongering. Ignore them and don't bother to correspond with them any further.

[jojo69]

thanks for the advice, that's what I will do and will let you know if I hear back from them which I think I will!

[frankiepfc]

I recently recieved an £85 charge from a P.P.C for parking on private land.However it does not state where the alledged offence took place and I was certainly not the driver.What should I do?

[green_and_mean]

I recently recieved an £85 charge from a P.P.C for parking on private land.However it does not state where the alledged offence took place and I was certainly not the driver.What should I do?

 

 

Take the letter and carefully file it in your recycling box!!

[frankiepfc]

So dont even reply to them Green?

[help needed]

JOJO........im in the same position as you regarding u.k.p.a.o, dont pay them a penny more, my so called charge is over 200 pounds now and my last letter from them was the same as yours, and i know Barnsley Boy had the same so ive just sent my third and final letter to them which is the cease and desist one, then ill forget about them.

[WebFerret]

Check this out: Mail on Sunday report:

 

Death knell sounds for Private Land Parking Firms with landmark ruling

Now political pressure must be applied to the DVLA to stop ALL private firms accessing the DVLA data base.

 

Judge quashes £300 parking fine...because it set out to ‘frighten and intimidate’ driver

 

By MARTIN DELGADO

Mail on Sunday

22nd March 2008

 

Car park operators could be forced to stop threatening motorists with huge penalty charges after a landmark court ruling.

 

In a decision that will be welcomed by many aggrieved drivers, a judge has ruled that the demands for hundreds of pounds in penalties which a parking company sent to one woman driver were illegal because they were too high.

 

The court was told they were intended to "frighten or intimidate" her rather than compensate the firm for any lost income.

The case is expected to have far-reaching implications for private parking firms.

 

Labour MP Alan Meale, who has campaigned on behalf of motorists, said: "This ruling gives hope that people who have had money taken from them wrongly by parking companies may be able to recover it." And the woman's solicitor, Martin Lee, said: "In future, companies that charge these sorts of sums will have them struck out unless they can prove that they are a proper account of any financial loss. "The courts have shown that unfairly high bank charges are a penalty charge and therefore unjustifiable. The same principle applies here."

 

In a ground-breaking decision, the judge quashed a series of £100 demands sent to Victoria Hetherington-Jakeman, who had allegedly left her car at a shopping centre for more than the permitted two hours.

 

She was sued by Excel Parking Services, which is run by a man once acquitted of demanding money with menaces from the owners of clamped cars and who is allowed electronic access to the Government's database of 38million motorists – despite being temporarily barred last year following scores of complaints about its behaviour.

 

Ms Hetherington-Jakeman, 60, was sued for failing to pay three £60 parking tickets which she did not even know she had been given.

Her visits to the Portland Retail Park near her home in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, took place between September and November 2006.

But no tickets were left on the windscreen of her Mercedes and she heard nothing from Excel until the following January when she was sent a bill for £300, followed by letters from bailiffs threatening to confiscate her property unless she paid up.

 

Excel had used a fixed camera to record her numberplate as she entered and left the site. It then passed the details to the DVLA, which sent back an email with her name and address.

 

Mr Lee told Mansfield County Court that the levy of £100 per offence was an "unlawful penalty clause" intended to "frighten or intimidate" and therefore unenforceable. This argument was accepted by District Judge Wall, who ruled that the fines did not have to be paid.

 

Last night, Ms Hetherington-Jakeman, who is head of quality control at a printing firm, said she was relieved her 14-month battle was over.

"Excel's behaviour has been absolutely disgraceful throughout. When I tried to contact them – and the only way to do that was on a 50p-a-minute premium-rate phone line – I got no response. They said they couldn't discuss the matter.

 

"They couldn't even get the most basic details right. First, they said my car was black, then silver. It's white." They claimed the initial £60 parking tickets hadn't arrived because of a hold-up at the Royal Mail, though the Post Office said that wasn't true. "It's been very stressful but at least we have got the judgment we wanted."

 

Excel, which manages a number of hospital, retail and station car parks, is run from an office in Sheffield by Simon Renshaw-Smith, 41, who is also director of a wheel-clamping firm called Captain Clampit Ltd.

In 1993 he was accused at Sheffield magistrates' court of demanding £145 with menaces from two drivers whose cars he had immobilised.

 

Asked last night about the case, Mr Renshaw-Smith said: "The accusations against me were dropped. I was acquitted."

 

Last July, Excel was finally removed from the "approved" list of organisations allowed electronic access to the DVLA's database. It followed complaints from around the country and the formation of a 100-strong action group in Mansfield made up entirely of motorists who claimed they had been unfairly treated by Excel.The move meant that Excel was forced to apply for personal data by post on a case-by-case basis. Yet the ban was lifted only three months later. A DVLA spokesman said inspectors visited the firm and decided it was using the data "appropriately".

 

MP Mr Meale said he would demand an explanation of the decision from Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly. Martin Bingley, a spokesman for the Mansfield action group, said: "Excel has an appalling reputation for failing to respond to appeals and for insisting they are right and the customer wrong."

 

Excel, which has now lost its contract to run the Portland car park, said it was "disappointed" by the court ruling in Ms Hetherington-Jakeman's favour and was considering an appeal.

[pin1onu]

Mr Lee told Mansfield County Court that the levy of £100 per offence was an "unlawful penalty clause" intended to "frighten or intimidate" and therefore unenforceable. This argument was accepted by District Judge Wall, who ruled that the fines did not have to be paid.

 

Don't want to rain on your parade but as has been discussed on other threads this is not a landmark decision as it is only county court and not binding on other courts.

 

It is however continuing proof that these excessive charges are penalties and that judges are recognising that fact.

 

Excel, which has now lost its contract to run the Portland car park, said it was "disappointed" by the court ruling in Ms Hetherington-Jakeman's favour and was considering an appeal.

I do hope Excel will appeal. If they do and lose then that will be a landmark ruling.

[Doctor Sinister]

Success at last

 

Thanks guys I've followed the advice written on various posts regarding private car parks.

 

I today got a letter from UKPC Ltd stating they have reviewed my parking notice and arranged for it to be cancelled!!! They even apologised ........great for me.....but that's not good enough for all you guys out there still fighting and still worrying about these crooks extorting money from you illegally. I'm determined to get justice for everyone who's been unfairly caught up in these scams and will do my best to take it as high as possible and get this company investigated so it doesn't happen to anyone else ever again. Watch this spot!!!!

 

All I can suggest is to please write to your MP's, the DTI, BPA and the DVLA and enclose all correspondence...more and more people should stick up for their rights and not be bullied by these fraudulent threats. There are new laws coming out now to help us. Look at this site http://www.landor.co.uk/parkingreview/images/bill2.pdf this confirms basically everything we are saying -the way most of these companies operate are illegal and will be stamped out.

Let me know if you need any help and in the meantime will keep you all posted!!!

GA xxx

 

I dont know if you read of my victory here. I am pursuing compensation BTW.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/132351-total-victory-against-ukpc.html

 

Dr. S.

[frankiepfc]

i HAVE JUST RECIEVED ANOTHER LETTER FROM A COMPANY CALLED VCS PARKING CONTROL.

I have already sent the 'desist letter' and exlained that I dont know who the driver was.They claim that the Keeper is responsible,is that right?.

They are now threatening enforcement procedures to follow.What should I do next?

[Guest Julian Fiddlepot]

Many will claim that the keeper cannot be held responsible, but this is not set in stone.

 

If you didn't want to pay the charge, you should have made sure you adhered to the regulations in the first place.

[Barnsley Boy]

Many will claim that the keeper cannot be held responsible, but this is not set in stone.

 

If you didn't want to pay the charge, you should have made sure you adhered to the regulations in the first place.

 

Yes - it is set in stone. The concept of privity of contract goes back hundreds of years. A third party simply cannot on a liability on behalf of another - simply can't happen.

 

What "regulations" - Administration of Justice 1970? The Fraud Act?

[Guest Julian Fiddlepot]

Many people spout this legislation, but has anyone ever heard of the police acting on a case involving a PPC? No, I didn't think so.

 

The police leave these companies alone to carry out their entirely legitimate business.

 

John Walsh recently tried to claim he was not the driver: he still had to pay.

[nigel_bytes]

Many people spout this legislation, but has anyone ever heard of the police acting on a case involving a PPC? No, I didn't think so.

 

The police leave these companies alone to carry out their entirely legitimate business.

 

.

 

Oh really ?

 

BBC NEWS | England | West Midlands | Car clamping company investigated

 

 

Car clamping company investigated

 

Trading standards are investigating claims made by a car clamping company on its website.

Officials raided Inter-Park's offices in the Garretts Green are of Birmingham using a warrant under the Trade Descriptions Act.

Trading standards officers are examining paperwork to establish who owns the company and whether or not it had a licence to operate.

The owner of Inter-Park UK was unavailable for comment. Earlier in the year a BBC Midlands Today viewer complained about the firm after he claimed he was clamped for being 1cm (0.39ins) over a white line. Keith Bickerstaffe had his K-reg BMW clamped at a car park in Digbeth and was charged about £500 to have it removed.

[frankiepfc]

Julien...I take it you work for one of these companies?

[ThisIsRacket]

Police ain't keen tp prosecute teenage criminals either, for law complexity not because their action are unlawful. I'd imagine a lot of these PPCs are run by people with criminal convictions or people close to the criminal world. Here is another article along the same lines:DVLA sells your details to criminals | the Daily Mail you notices that you never find any names of directors on their websites and they don't give their full/real name when on the phone. Fear of retribution? Why if they say their cause is so righteous? I think it'd be good to have a few of these mugs posted on the net somewhere - just imagine your neighbourhood realises that you are a scambag.

[pin1onu]

Many people spout this legislation, but has anyone ever heard of the police acting on a case involving a PPC? No, I didn't think so.

 

At the risk of Troll feeding

 

There are two main reasons that you don't hear of the police getting involved.

 

1. Because the PPCs back down when they receive these letters and try easier fish. I.e. ones that don't bit back.

2. OFT and Trading Standards get involved and so do the courts. A friend of mine got an injuction against a DCA after 3 months of harrassing calls on a disputed debt. In her case she used the AJA Sect 40 and the Protection from Harrassment Act to good effect.

 

The police leave these companies alone to carry out their entirely legitimate business.

 

As to the running of a legitimate business. Some do but many don't and most use unethical and illegal practices.

 

If you check out a lot of PPCs at Companies House many don't have up to date accounts filed. Some don't list the registered office on their documentation. This is a statuatory requirement for registered companies.

 

Then there are all the false claims such as privity of contract, penalty charges and so on that are all illegal under existing case law. Not to mention the mimicing of official documents and misquoting of legislation that some PPCs do. Some sails very close to actual breaches of Section 40 of the AJA and I've seen examples where it is clearly breached.

 

However the regulation and compliance of these companies does not always fall within the purview of the Police but rather of Companies House, the OFT and Trading Standards which is why I always advise people to complain to these bodies as well as the Police

 

I'd imagine a lot of these PPCs are run by people with criminal convictions or people close to the criminal world.

I can't agree that this would always be true. Although there may be a bunch of illegitimates running legimate businesses.

 

It would be nice if the PSI Act was extended to the PPC industry (it only touches them if they clamp/tow away). Then all those involved in issuing tickets or owning the companies would have to be registered and if they've criminal records they would have to declare them.

[ALEX,S DAD]

I'll let you know what happens next - thanks

hi joanne

 

whats is the out come ? have they given up ,

 

keep up the fight