PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - Correct parking Charge paid!, ANPR car park
Macapaca
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 19:50
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



The driver paid the correct fee of 50p to stay for up to 1 hour. The PCN notice correctly identified that the car was parked for less than half that time. The registration number was correctly entered and checked on the machine display before the Validate button was hit. The machine display confirmed that the fee had been paid. Unfortunately the pay machine did not issue a receipt. The company in question are just using photographic evIdence that the car was parked. They have not supplied any evidence that payment was not made. As the RK I appealed and asked for visibility of the payment machine log to show that the registration and payment was made. They have refused to supply that information.

So I am determined to fight this unjust charge of £100 when in good faith the correct parking fee of 50p was paid and met all the parking contractual requirements stated on the car park notices.

The initial appeal to the PPC has been rejected and I have now received a POPLA code. I would like advice on whether to submit a POPLA appeal or just ignore all letters except for a court case should it come to that. I am determined to fight this unjust PCN and will happily go to court to fight my case.

Any experienced and wise advice is welcome.

This post has been edited by Macapaca: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 16:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Start new topic
Replies (80 - 90)
Advertisement
post Tue, 10 Oct 2017 - 19:50
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
kommando
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 19:31
Post #81


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,618
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Its a number game, provided enough people fold and pay after seeing a claim then losing a few to properly motivated and prepared defendants is acceptable. Its just a way of applying pressure and a type of debt collection.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 08:49
Post #82


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,200
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



As above
Behaving unreasonably doesnt mean they wont win, either.
It's literally a numbers game...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 17:54
Post #83


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



So after sending a long letter to the PPC in response to their letter, which I assumed to be a letter before action (LBA), I have now received a solicitors letter. It is now five weeks since i sent my letter to the PPC giving them 14 days to reply in full otherwise I would assume that they did not wish to proceed on accordance with the PAP. My letter has not even been acknowledged. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. The solicitors letter now gives me 14 days to pay £100 to the PPC with the threat of potential court action if I don't.

The letter does not have a title so it is not clear if this is just a standard debt recovery letter or effectively a more formal LBA. If it is meant to be a more formal LBA then it does not state so and certain lyndsey doesn't contain all the detail required by the PAP.

I am certainly not going to respond by sending £100 to the PPC!

Any thoughts or advice on how I should treat this letter?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:31
Post #84


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,280
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



If you are unsure of the letter then post it up for comment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:31
Post #85


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



The letter only states debt recovery on behalf of Premier Park and does not say anything explicitly about being a LBA or following the PAP. It is identical to ones I have seen in various places from SCS Law. It appears to be just a standard brief letter. I am not familiar with how to post a redacted version but I will do so if I can work out how to do so.


This post has been edited by Macapaca: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:56
Post #86


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 268
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



My personal view is that letters from solicitors should receive a reply

In the event of a claim, a court could regard failure to reply as unreasonable and won't make a distinction between a debt collector style letter and a Letter Before Claim

I would keep the reply very simple

Dear Sir

Ref ****

I have received your letter dated ***

I deny any debt to Premier Park and refer you to my previous correspondence with your client

Yours Faithfully


SCS can't complain about the reply
If it was genuinely acting as a solicitor, it would already have a copy of the correspondence

I wouldn't waste time with Companies House
It doesn't take any action for failures to include legally required information

You can use it to advantage later to justify your brief response
SCS didn't identify itself and, as you had already adequately explained why you disputed the debt, you provided no more information than a genuine solicitor would already possess
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 09:51
Post #87


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



The letter is titled Re: Debt owed to Premier Park Ltd

The letter also states 'At this stage please contact Premier Park Ltd on tel. no or pcnpayments.com'.

So it appears that it is a plain debt recovery letter. All they have done is change the name address on a standard template letter. PP appear to have paid the minimum amount to send a vanilla threatening solicitors letter presumably hoping that will do the trick and I will cave in and pay, which I won't.

My previous letter to PP did make it clear that I wouldn't respond to letters from their DRA. I haven't received any to ignore so maybe they took that onboard but thought that I may be spooked by a solicitors letter instead?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:41
Post #88


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,280
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Premier have probably "borrowed" the letterhead from the solicitor and the solicitor knows nothing about it.

You could write to them and require a response within 14 days

This post has been edited by ostell: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:55
Post #89


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,200
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Write to the sol, and require a response within 14 days, asking if the letter was issued by them
State that lack of a response will be taken as confirmaiton that the letter was counterfeit, and can be ignored OR reported to trading standards as an attempt to fraudulently obtain money.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 12:25
Post #90


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



Great advice ostell and nosferatu! Thanks guys. I was unsure whether to respond directly or ignore but you have given me good amunition to reply. I thought it was suspicious that the letter said to reply to PP rather than the solicitors. If the solicitor was really dealing with it now then surely they would expect any response. I also thought that if I send a letter to the solicitors and they are genuinely dealing with it then it will incur additional charges for PP further reducing their appetite to continue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 16:37
Post #91


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



I should have added that I actually received two almost identical letters four days apart. The second letter stated that I should disregard the first one. The only difference was that the first one had the wrong car park! I think it just emphasises that the letter was just a copy and paste from a well used template.

Anyway I have now sent a letter to SCS Law as per the advice in this thread. The PPC now needs to get off the potty and decide if they are going to proceed to Court action or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 21st February 2018 - 19:08
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.