Received a debt recovery letter about a PCN I thought was handled Options

[altreus]

I received a PCN two years ago, which I appealed on the grounds that the parking was paid for, and I can prove it.

I just received a letter from a debt collection agency, which prompted me to look in my emails, and I discovered that I had an unread email saying my appeal had been rejected.

It was unread because Google likes to make big decisions about whether an email is important or not, and didn't think this was particularly relevant, and so I didn't see it. (Had I received any written letters I would immediately have spoken to POPLA.) Frankly it did not occur to me that they would try to enforce a PCN that is demonstrably false. Bear in mind this all happened 2 years ago and my memory is hazy - even worse because I went to the hospital twice in the same day, so it was obviously not a very good day.

I called up the debt agency to say I'm not going to pay it. I may have been in a tiz and probably should have cooled off a bit first but here we are.

At this point I'm not sure what information I can provide for advice but it seems to me fairly obvious that if they want to take me to court it will not get past the door. However, I'm worried that because it's now gone from a PCN to a debt that the same considerations don't apply, and the fact I don't owe anybody any money in the first place is now irrelevant because I missed the window to fight that particular battle.

I'm also worried that perhaps there is something they're not telling me, because I'm seeing posts on here about people who were charged for being stuck in a queue trying to leave the car park, and frankly I have absolutely no way to know if that was the case or not. It is an assumption on my part that the two payments from my bank to the car park cover all the possible things they could have to complain about.

I should have a copy of the original PCN somewhere but it turns out I've been fighting ADHD all my life and in 2019 I had not been diagnosed, so goodness knows whether I actually managed to implement the plan to keep important things like that. I don't even have a copy of my appeal because, while they acknowledge that they receive it, they do not confirm what it actually was.

Anyway, sorry to go on about it. My main question at this point is, is this an obviously cut-and-dry case, and if not, what other info can I provide to help?

TIA

[Advertisement]

[Sheffield Dave]

We can't tell you whether its a cut and dry case because you've told us almost nothing about the original parking incident and why you don't think you're liable.

Debt collectors are people who contact you before a judge has determined whether there is a debt or not. They have literally no powers and should be ignored.
Whether the original parking company will eventually choose to take you to court is another matter.

If you've lost the original paperwork, then send a SAR to the parking company.

[Jlc]

I received a PCN two years ago, which I appealed on the grounds that the parking was paid for, and I can prove it.

Can you still prove it? Such as having the ticket or a bank transaction?

Which parking company?

Do not ring anyone - communication in writing only.

[altreus]

Can you still prove it? Such as having the ticket or a bank transaction?

Yes - There are two transactions to "Walsgrave car park" on the day in question. It's an ANPR system so there is no ticket, and I think this is the incident that prompted me to always get a receipt from the machine, because I foolishly trusted the company not to install a broken system...

Which parking company?

Er, is Car Parking Partnership a parking company or, as it sounds like, a body of many? I'll have to dig out the original PCN to be sure.

Do not ring anyone - communication in writing only.

I suppose this is why they make it so difficult to do that? If I'm doing anything except bending over and paying up I "have to" phone. Post, then?

We can't tell you whether its a cut and dry case because you've told us almost nothing about the original parking incident and why you don't think you're liable.

Apologies, I gave as much as I could without having the original documents to hand. All I know is the date in question and the fact that I have paid for parking - twice - on the date in question. I remember objecting to the PCN on the grounds I had paid, but I can't give further details because I don't have them.

Debt collectors are people who contact you before a judge has determined whether there is a debt or not. They have literally no powers and should be ignored.
Whether the original parking company will eventually choose to take you to court is another matter.

This is good intel and I'll keep it in mind, thanks. If it takes a judge to determine whether there's debt then I feel like I'm on solid ground.

This post has been edited by altreus: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 - 16:26

[Jlc]

CPP is part of ParkingEye's operation. (ParkingEye also t/as Car Parking Partnership)

Yes, post. In phoning a PPC they are only interested in you paying or getting information from you that prejudices your case.

Even though you paid there are other reasons why PCN's are issued, such as the registration being incorrectly entered or not paying quickly enough or overstaying slightly (e.g. 10 minutes) - ANPR times are from entry to exit.

You mention paying twice on the day - did you breach a 'no return clause' or have they incorrectly taken first entry and last exit and claim you stayed much longer.

[The Rookie]

Most CPP sites are from before they were bought by PE, back then their signs could be fairly flakey, hopefully you have a photo.

The usual issue when parking has been paid for is that there is a mistake in providing the vehicle registration so the payment isn’t matched to ANPR data of the cars stay. This can create a contractual liability to pay.

[altreus]

I can be sure there's no VRM mismatch issue because, it being ANPR, I had to enter the VRM in order to pay in the first place.

At least - there was no issue at the time of payment. If they have incorrectly filed the payment against the wrong VRM I'm not sure that's any reason for me to owe them £170.

If there's a no-return clause at Walsgrave Hospital I'm going to be very upset.

My pet hypothesis is as Jlc says - that they have for some reason decided that I stayed the whole day, and thus they believe that I am liable for the whole period. This seems infeasible, given how often people must drop people off and return later in the day.

It's possible it took me such a long time to leave that the ANPR system believes me to have left longer than I paid for, but I found another post on this forum that says the law accounts for this, and I shouldn't be liable for factors beyond my control.

Thanks for the advice so far - I think my next step is to write to CPP and find out exactly what they believe me to have done wrong. The debt recovery people can waste their own time as much as they like.

This post has been edited by altreus: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 - 16:47

[The Rookie]

I can be sure there's no VRM mismatch issue because, it being ANPR, I had to enter my VRM in order to pay in the first place.

That is only the case if the payment machine 'looks up' your VRM, most do not. So perhaps explain why that 'because' is absolute.

[hcandersen]

OP, let's get away from thinking about evidence to establish a defence because this could be wholly procedural.

So, let's sort out which procedure applies.

. It's an ANPR system

I received a PCN two years ago, which I appealed on the grounds

This tallies. They've written to you as 'keeper'.

But when you 'appealed' did you disclose who was driving? This is the key piece of info we need at present

Your posts here clearly identify you as driver, so unless your appeal did the same(and therefore let the procedural cat out of the bag) then amend your posts to keep the identity of the driver unknown.

But if your appeal did reveal who was driving then the creditor is free to pursue you as driver and POFA is not engaged.

[nosferatu1001]

Op - so when you go to register etc, it brings up your vehicle from a. List? Or do you have to input your VRM and on the backend it matches your input to detected vehicles?

The former is rare.

[altreus]

But when you 'appealed' did you disclose who was driving? This is the key piece of info we need at present

I don't know - what I've discovered from this debacle is that although they provided acknowledgement of an appeal, they did not tell me what was in it.

Knowing myself this appeal would have been made through a web form, and I would not have considered at the time that I should keep a record of it.

That is only the case if the payment machine 'looks up' your VRM

It does: you put in the VRM (or part of it; it filters as you type) and it shows a picture of the car, and you press the picture to say "I want to pay for this". Then you pay for it. So I am certain that at the time of payment I had established that I was paying for the correct vehicle.

I'm not sure if this also answers nosferatu1001, but I hope so.

[nosferatu1001]

So you could send them a sar, easy. Then they have to send you a copy of your appeal...in up to 30 days

Failing to take a copy of legal docs is a bad idea.

That does answer it, and means ASSUMING the driver or other occupant picked the right vehicle, there is no user error here .

[altreus]

I'll send one then. Won't this be fun.

Incidentally, in my previous posts I was trying to be very careful that I only admitted to paying for parking and tried to make no mention of whether I was, in fact, the person who parked it there in the first place. Anyone can perform the act of paying, after all. If anything slipped through the gaps I would be grateful to anyone who can point it out, but I don't think I've said anything to the effect of whether or not I was the driver.