Hi all, I don't post often but I have read this thread front to back, and I am a bit worried. Everyone seems to pay an awful lot of attention to these pretend parking "tickets", these speculative invoices, these toilet paper stick and runs. Has something changed dramatically with contract law recently? My approach has always been, and is STILL (most worryingly!) IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE.
I have arguments I COULD make, "no contract", not the driver, you can prove who was, I can't remember and it's not an offence to be forgetful, etcetera! But I don't intend to waste a second of my life or a penny of my money on talking to these morons. My particular local car park is committing fraud with its signage anyway so I just take a photo of their sign every time I get a pretend ticket slapped on my car. They call me an "offender" if I don't pay which is untrue and an unlawful claim to make as it assumes the role of the state and they have no statutes behind anything they say or do. AS FAR AS I KNOW!

Now then...... having read this thread, should I be more worried than this?!

Maybe the supreme court could enlighten you Tom.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/beavis-v-p...ingeye-ltd.html

start your own thread for advice and help if you will need it.

Have a good look at POFA

You may be in for a surprise

Yes, sadly our government, always quick to be hoodwinked by lobby groups introduced POFA which allowed these parasites to go after the registered keeper.

providing they follow strict rules


they do not


full stop

Hoodwink is one description
Bare-faced lie is more accurate

The BPA told the Government that their unfortunate members couldn't enforce tickets because they couldn't identify drivers.
That was why clamping was justified as the only usable sanction

By removing the "not driver" or "prove driver" defence it would remove 90 000 claims per year from the court system
The true figure was 845 claims of which 54 got as far as a hearing

Instead of three claims per day for the entire industry ParkingEye alone now issues this number in less than half an hour

It's difficult to see how the Government could have made a more ham-fisted job of the legislation

Apart from giving the impression that parking charges were now legal, they provided a windfall for the clampers

By announcing that a ban was imminent they set off a feeding frenzy
Release fees rose from typically £80 to £400

When Trading Standards took no action, the fees remained at this level for about two years

Scotland simply called the practice extortion and banned it with immediate effect

It does seems to be getting harder to fight these things? - If Beavis gets taken down, then it will be even harder still.
Would be very interesting to know what percentage of issued 'tickets' are actually collected these days... probably quite a lot.

So I have today received a letter addressed to me, from a debt collection agency demanding 160 quid.

This is the first letter that they have sent to me, they previously attempted to threaten the registered keeper into coughing up, despite the fact that they had failed to comply with PoFA.

They are now assuming that I was the driver, although I have not told them any such thing.

Dear Sir

Ref ***

I note your letter dated ****

I deny any debt to your client and will under no circumstances make any payment to your company.

Your client is fully aware that I was not the driver and it failed to meet the requirements of POFA to pursue me as keeper.

Don't contact me again.
I will note the content of your letters but do not guarantee to reply.

I will, however, at my discretion and in my own time present such letters to the relevant authorities.
They will be evidence that your client is wilfully demanding payment in the full knowledge that I have no liability.

I therefore suggest that you advise your client of my response and refer it to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Section 7(3A) regarding its liability for your actions.

Unless you ignore the above warning, the matter is closed.

Yours Faithfully

Thanks! - will send that.

I wasn't aware the "supreme court" ever enlightened anyone
In fact I wasn't aware it existed outside the US, until I remembered we are obsessed with replacing our culture with theirs, go figure (I actually heard a teenager on a bus the other day telling their mate about their "mom". oh dear!)

Anyway back to the matter at hand.... am I being asked to start a new thread? I can if needed, don't want to flout any rules, just felt this was a bit of an ongoing discussion here. I may need help in future, but currently I don't feel I do, not help with anything formal anyway, as I haven't yet and don't intend to reply to any of the 27 fraudulent 'fixed penalty lookylikeys' I have on my trophy wall from the same swine of a fraudster, known as my local PPC.

From what I saw at that 'Chicken Supreme' Court link - the jury is still out and no judgement is forthcoming as of yet. Is that correct?

I do not know anything about the PoFa thingie and liability/enforceability against RK versus driver. That is something which obviously interests me so I will keep reading on that subject.
Every time I get a ticket personally, from this car park I mentioned, I take a photograph of their signage, which clearly displays the words "Offenders will be prosecuted" and "It is an Offence to....".
Now correct me if I am wrong, as I may now be since so much seems to have changed since I last cared enough to look into the law on this stuff..... but I didn't think a private company could assume the role of the state in calling me an "offender" or dictating what is or isn't an "offence", a protected term to be used only by statute bodies such as the Police. Is this still the case? I hope so, because one of my plan b's is to bring said photo to court to suggest my reason for non payment is my refusal to contract with a company actively and openly committing fraud on the unsuspecting public!

Am I in for a shock, or just some scaremongering from people who have been scared by new found means of doing so by these scoundrels? I don't say that with tongue in cheek by the way, I genuinely ask the question. thanks all, keep up the good fight

Just had this from the nice People at DRPL!

They seem to be 'throwing the book' at this in terms of trying to make it stick.

At the end of the day, Keeper Liability does not apply and I was not the Driver.... so I suppose they could 'jog on' - I will probably just write back and say 'see you in court'!

Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

The time to challenge the charge has now expired and therefore access to the Independent Appeals Service (if applicable) is no longer available.

However, in order to resolve this matter, I will offer the following comments as to why this PCN was correctly issued and is still payable.

My findings

The site in question is subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout the area. Those signs state that drivers must clearly display a valid ticket for the site.

On the date in question, the vehicle was parked on the site but no valid ticket was clearly displayed and a PCN was correctly and legitimately issued as a result.

Harassment


Harassment has been referred to and therefore I feel obliged to point out that under S1(3)© of The Harassment Act 1997, a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not be deemed so if the person who pursued it shows that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Under the circumstances our course of action has been entirely reasonable and in no way reaches the high threshold of harassment. Our company has legitimately pursued recompense for a breach of the terms and conditions attached to our client’s site.

Compliance with the Consumer Credit Sourcebook

We note that you have contacted us concerning your liability for this parking charge. A debt can only be denied if the ‘customer disputes the debt on valid grounds’. Where keeper liability has been established under the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 then we are proceeding on this basis. For charges issues outside of this Act, or if the parking charge was issued outside of England or Wales, we are pursuing the driver on the basis of Elliott v Loake [1982].

The following information confirms the relevant details of the debt:



· Our Reference:

· Parking Operator Reference:

· Vehicle Registration:

· Parking Charge date: 14/05/2015

· Location: Oystermouth Square Car Park

· Reason for Issue: Parking without displaying a valid ticket

· Creditor: Local Parking Security Ltd



The current amount outstanding is £160.00. This has been calculated as per the terms and conditions displayed on signage when the vehicle was parked in a manner where the driver attracted a parking charge as brought to the driver's attention via signage and agreed to by the driver when the vehicle was parked on private land managed by our client.



It is also supported by the decision in the Court of Appeal dated 23rd April 2015 ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis:



Judgment available to view here: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html.



In this case the matter of the legality of private parking charges issued in England and Wales was challenged. The three Judges (Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lord Justice Patten and Sir Timothy Lloyd) unanimously dismissed the motorist's appeal, finding that the amount was “not extravagant or unconscionable and that the court should therefore not decline to enforce the contract”. The decision of the Court of Appeal is a binding Judgment and whilst we wish to confirm that a further appeal has now been lodged, it is notable that this appeal does not put on hold/act as a stay of the decision reached by the Court of Appeal.

What you need to do now

Please ensure that £160.00 is paid by 2nd November 2015. Payment can be made online or by phone. Go to www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/pay or phone 0208 234 6775. You can find full details of how to pay on the reverse of the letter(s) sent.

What will happen if you do not pay what you owe


If the amount is not paid by the date shown above, we will recommend to our client that court action be taken by them to recover the outstanding balance


What if you do not agree


Although any correspondence that does not provide further evidence will be noted and retained, I cannot guarantee that we will reply to it.

My findings - a templated response... Ironic.

File and ignore. No need to engage these idiots.

Yes, I mean - I'm happy to pop to court if required.

Then wait for a real letter before claim, or court papers. You can't really initiate the section.