Standard letter received :)

[Guest perky88]

I have today been passed a standard letter, excatly the same as I have seen many people here advise recipients of parking charges to write.

 

bit of background ..

 

The person was issued a charge by the landowner under the companies self ticketing scheme approx 2months ago, no reply was received and the company DVLAd them .. they sent them a standard letter advising no appeal/payment has been received and the charge was due as stated on the signage and ticket - if not paid within 14days it would be passed to county court for enforcement, costs would increase to a certain amount as per the charge notice issued and court costs/interest would also be added - they enclosed 2 pictures of vehicle parked NEXT TO THE SIGN .. the pic also shows ticket attached etc..

 

It was a permit holders only carpark in a city centre, they were parked next to the sign and a parking charge

 

The letter received today, some 4 pages long (26days after the company letter was sent) firstly states the charge was illegal and as a result no appeal or response is needed (so why write ???) then waffles on about unfair contract terms - then about actually only claim for damages - then about only the driver is liable - then about not contacting them again - then about them charging us for every letter they reply.

 

Made me smile ... well I did consider a response, but instead have just issued proceedings in County Court. ..

 

Dont know where they got damages from, clearly they are requesting payment of the charge not damages .. the sign stated £60 and thats what we are asking for £60 ... not for loss of earnings/profit etc..

 

Be interesting to see what their defence actually is .. reading the letter they are not clear. looks like they have just copied/pasted and changed a few dates etc...

 

When at University, I was told especially in law that "a little knowledge is dangerous" .. and to send a letter like that, without fully understanding the contents is laughable.

 

I am also not sure what the court will think about someone asking us not to contact them again, of course we have a duty to respect their wishes but we also have a duty to the court to try and resolve matters before the hearing .. the driver/rk has stated they donot want to assist by asking us not to contact them !!!!

 

If the claim is defended, will need to write to the court with a copy of the defendants request and ask for directions .. think I might scan the response from the court when the judge tells them to comply !!

 

Anyway, I will keep this thread updated

[patdavies]

I would be interested to see this track through with detail.

 

One point, if the charge notice was left on the vehicle, how does the company know that the person they have written to is the driver and would have been expected to see it? I assume here that the company has written to the Registered Keeper - who can only have known about the sign and the implied contract by being the driver at the time.

 

If the RK was not there, they they cannot have entered into any sort of contract to pay this charge.

[Guest perky88]

Well, from the notes I have, the RK was written to and has responded - due to the "standard letter" response it is unsure what they are saying as their defence - were they driving? (they have not stated either way) - or are they saying unfair contract terms? - the "standard letter" is not clear, as I fail to see how they can rely on all the defences in their letter as some are conflicting.

 

Luckily most of our clients are self managed and this one has a description of the driver when they returned to the vehicle - this has been written on the agents copy (the sex is the same as the RK) .. but as I have not seen the driver unable to say.

 

If they say they were not the RK and start being arsey/smart .. I Will hold back and only disclose our description to the in the pre-disclosure file 14days before ... be hysterical if they write back saying they were not the driver and the description is exact of the person in court ...

 

Anyway ... they have 18 days to reply (14+4) .. so will update when I receive payment/defence or issue a default judgement.

[swisstoni]

... be hysterical if they write back saying they were not the driver and the description is exact of the person in court ..

Yeah, He had two arms, two legs, a body and a head.

 

Seriously though, it will be good to see the outcome of this

 

SwissT

[patdavies]

(the sex is the same as the RK)

 

Like approximately 50% of the population - but I take your point

 

 

be hysterical if they write back saying they were not the driver and the description is exact of the person in court ...

Particularly if they file a written defence only or send a representative.

[Guest perky88]

As promised ... Just an update ..

 

The RK has submitted an acknowledgement of service, so I suspect they will be defending the claim (they have indiciated such)... so keep watching

 

Once I receive the defence and our submission a further update will be made here.

 

PLEASE PLEASE donot add anything to this thread at the moment, I wish to keep it as small but factual as possible, so it doesnt end up to be multiple pages of the same questions with no factual answers to be added.

[petej2811]

To all readers:

 

You do realise that you cannot rely on this as a factual account of anything that happened?

 

You want the case number from this chap so that it can be tracked at the local CC.

 

YOU CANNOT TRUST WHAT A PERSON WITH AN INTEREST IN THESE MATTERS TELLS YOU BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU DON'T PAY, HE LOSES MONEY.

[Panthro]

Judge: Well Mr. Perky can you identify the driver.

Perky: Yes, he is a man

Judge: And?

Perky: Well, that's all we have.

Judge: Case Dismissed.

[green_and_mean]

To all readers:

 

You do realise that you cannot rely on this as a factual account of anything that happened?

 

You want the case number from this chap so that it can be tracked at the local CC.

 

YOU CANNOT TRUST WHAT A PERSON WITH AN INTEREST IN THESE MATTERS TELLS YOU BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU DON'T PAY, HE LOSES MONEY.

 

 

Everyone has an interest of some sort on this board or they would not be here. Would you not accept legal information from a Police officer based on the principle they want people locked up?

Perky has never hidden the fact that he is speaking from experience within the industry and has openly disclosed his personal details resulting in personal attacks on himself and his family.

Posters have the choice to take the advice given or ignore it. Many other posters on here do not disclose their motives behind giving information and try to use the board as a mouthpiece for their anti parking enforcement stance.

[Muggerbee]

Everyone has an interest of some sort on this board or they would not be here. Would you not accept legal information from a Police officer based on the principle they want people locked up?

Perky has never hidden the fact that he is speaking from experience within the industry and has openly disclosed his personal details resulting in personal attacks on himself and his family.

Posters have the choice to take the advice given or ignore it. Many other posters on here do not disclose their motives behind giving information and try to use the board as a mouthpiece for their anti parking enforcement stance.

 

Everyone has an interest on this board, very true, however MOST people have an interest in the rights of the consumer, "Parking Enforcement" as I am sure you are aware is a matter for the police under criminalised parking or local councils and their appointed representatives under decrim. Anything else is a business which by definition exists to make profit for the shareholders/owners.

 

I personally would not take legal advice from a police officer and I'm sure no one else would, amnesty international members especially.

 

Posters do indeed have the choice to either take or leave advice, however they are best served if they know the motivation behind the advice, be it from altruism or the need to protect a lucrative income stream.

 

btw I've never seen any attacks on anyones family on here, I have seen thinly veiled threats to the health and to the family of posters though.

[MikeBigg]

Luckily most of our clients are self managed and this one has a description of the driver when they returned to the vehicle - this has been written on the agents copy (the sex is the same as the RK) .. but as I have not seen the driver unable to say.

 

Is the description of the person who drove the car out of the car park even relevant?

[green_and_mean]

Everyone has an interest on this board, very true, however MOST people have an interest in the rights of the consumer, "Parking Enforcement" as I am sure you are aware is a matter for the police under criminalised parking or local councils and their appointed representatives under decrim.

 

Not ALL consumers drive cars and not ALL consumers parked anti-socially so defending every single action by every single driver on here out of principle is not always in the best interest of 'Consumers' in general in my opinion. Until recently there did actually used to be more threads from both sides of the fence such as 'my neighbour parks across my drive' type questions. That is what seperates trhis board from other boards it offers advice and debate on all parking matters without the anti Council, anti PPC tirades witnessed on other more political boards.

[Muggerbee]

Not ALL consumers drive cars and not ALL consumers parked anti-socially so defending every single action by every single driver on here out of principle is not always in the best interest of 'Consumers' in general in my opinion. Until recently there did actually used to be more threads from both sides of the fence such as 'my neighbour parks across my drive' type questions. That is what seperates trhis board from other boards it offers advice and debate on all parking matters without the anti Council, anti PPC tirades witnessed on other more political boards.

 

As stated before, we don't make the law, we abide by the law. If we consider the law to be wrong we have the right to representation, thats democracy.

 

We have the right to free speech, we have the right to an opinion, we do not have the right to subjugate anyone by using scare tactics or misrepresentation.

 

Standing up to something which has no basis in law, be it a clerical error or a deliberate attempt to coerce monies due as a debt by uttering a false document or whatever, is not a tirade it's a right. A right which people have fought and died for.

 

Obviously the term Tirade couldn't be used for the actions of the PPC apologists as that would make them stand out like a sore thumb, but it's getting pretty clear now where each persons interests lie.

[petej2811]

Everyone has an interest of some sort on this board or they would not be here. Would you not accept legal information from a Police officer based on the principle they want people locked up?

Perky has never hidden the fact that he is speaking from experience within the industry and has openly disclosed his personal details resulting in personal attacks on himself and his family.

Posters have the choice to take the advice given or ignore it. Many other posters on here do not disclose their motives behind giving information and try to use the board as a mouthpiece for their anti parking enforcement stance.

 

Well as you've asked, no I wouldn't accept legal inromation from a police officer. In fact I can assure you that I don't. There are two reasons for this.

 

The first is that I know better than the vast majority of police officers and so don't really need to be told the law by someone who learnt it in a seminar.

 

Secondly the police have an interest in seeing people locked up. It is their business. Plus, much as I dislike admitting it they are usually right, but that's not the point. The point is they take it personally because to them it is an emotive topic and so they are invested in it. Just as a parking company rep is invested in his business.

 

Here's my stance. I dislike seeing people being ripped off because of their ignorance. I know that parking companies exploit this from my involvement in hundreds of cases. I don't think this is fair and so I give my spare time to advise, by email, by phone and in person. I prepare legal documents, defences and case scripts for people for nothing because I find it incredible that nothing more can be done about this.

 

I'm the stop gap for anyone who should care to ask for my help until the state gets involved.

 

Perky should have known better than to tell people here that he works for the parking company and that he was here as the voice of common sense. Nobody was going to believe him that had a lot of sense and he should have seen that this place was anti-parking. That is the nature of the beast. That he chose to muck in then only serves to illustrate that he has poor judgement. What did he really expect?

[green_and_mean]

Perky should have known better than to tell people here that he works for the parking company and that he was here as the voice of common sense. Nobody was going to believe him that had a lot of sense and he should have seen that this place was anti-parking. That is the nature of the beast. That he chose to muck in then only serves to illustrate that he has poor judgement. What did he really expect?

 

 

This place is not anti-parking as you put it, I for one agree with parking restrictions. This does not stop me giving people advice where advice is due. I do not agree with shop lifting but there are occasions where shops make mistakes and the accused would get my support if that was the case but that does not mean I support shoplifting does it? I'm sure Perky is not on commision from all PPCs in the Uk so his advice on other cases may have been of help to some people.

[Muggerbee]

peteJ

 

we are not worthy, very eloquently put

[Muggerbee]

This place is not anti-parking as you put it, I for one agree with parking restrictions. This does not stop me giving people advice where advice is due. I do not agree with shop lifting but there are occasions where shops make mistakes and the accused would get my support if that was the case but that does not mean I support shoplifting does it? I'm sure Perky is not on commision from all PPCs in the Uk so his advice on other cases may have been of help to some people.

 

I agree with parking restrictions for everyones benefit and safety, I agree with the principle of the police enforcing the law by consent, i do not agree with people trying to add legitamacy to their cause by handing out sweets to some people then actively stealing them from 10 times as many other children while smiling nicely.

 

If you take a step back and look at the nature of posts and the colusion going on G and M you can't fail to see a pattern of self preservation by whatever means possible. face facts, IF oneday there is a seminal ruling on the subject that goes against the PPC's then theres going to be a lot of people out looking for an honest living.

 

So regardless of who the poster is, so long as they are affiliated with a PPC then the motive for being here is not altruism, if it was they'd be crap businessmen, wouldn't they ?

[petej2811]

This place is not anti-parking as you put it, I for one agree with parking restrictions. This does not stop me giving people advice where advice is due. I do not agree with shop lifting but there are occasions where shops make mistakes and the accused would get my support if that was the case but that does not mean I support shoplifting does it? I'm sure Perky is not on commision from all PPCs in the Uk so his advice on other cases may have been of help to some people.

 

That's exactly how I put it. having read a fair few threads this evening I can tell you that most of them are from people not happy at having had parking tickets. If its not anti-parking then what is it, prey tell? Gleefully indifferent? Tell me, does the obvious always escape you like this?

 

Yet another comparison with statutory crime. You're not getting this. Private parking has little to do with statute law (and that statute law that is concerned is largely concerned with the defence).

 

I doubt he is on commission from all PPCs but the fact is he is involved and therefore has an interest in the general consensus and the tide of public opinion. Ergo, one cannot in good sense rely on anything he says.

 

I feel like a school teacher in the dunce class today.

[petej2811]

 

If you take a step back and look at the nature of posts and the colusion going on G and M you can't fail to see a pattern of self preservation by whatever means possible. face facts, IF oneday there is a seminal ruling on the subject that goes against the PPC's then theres going to be a lot of people out looking for an honest living.

 

QUOTE]

 

I found this a lot funnier than it probably is!

 

PJ

[Muggerbee]

PJ

 

it was intentional