Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: supermarket ppc
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
baileyGT60
Hi sorry for the repeated ppc
my oh has brought home a "Parking charge notice" issued by town and city Parking at an yorkshire HQ based supermarket store.
They state the oh was parked in the wrong spot For EG parent and child.....
Yes we do have a baby and the seat was in the car but not the baby she was at nursery
The notice has also got the road fund lic. number along with the expiry date

I would like to know what we do as they say "the oh was seen getting in/out the car without the baby"
Do we appeal/ pay the notice or ignore everything like the start says?
If i have to i will pay..

Also what happens after all the letters they send out will they go to court?

Advice please
Thank you
Sweven
They won't take you to court. Read similar threads on here and ignore everything they send you.
FunkyF
QUOTE (baileyGT60 @ Wed, 25 Nov 2009 - 22:22) *
Hi sorry for the repeated ppc
my oh has brought home a "Parking charge notice" issued by town and city Parking at an yorkshire HQ based supermarket store.
They state the oh was parked in the wrong spot For EG parent and child.....
Yes we do have a baby and the seat was in the car but not the baby she was at nursery
The notice has also got the road fund lic. number along with the expiry date

I would like to know what we do as they say "the oh was seen getting in/out the car without the baby"
Do we appeal/ pay the notice or ignore everything like the start says?
If i have to i will pay..

Also what happens after all the letters they send out will they go to court?

Advice please
Thank you



f you haven't already read the many other threads on PPC's and understand how this Scam works.

Don't do anything. Ignore all correspondence from them spread over several months and they will finally give up. Don't "appeal" as you will be seen as a potential bite - your "appeal" will fail anyway.

They won't take you to court.

Aside from moral grounds on taking a space from somebody that could beneft from there use a Disabled or Parent and Child parking space at a Supermarket is no different to any other (other than it might be painted blue or green).



dave-o
They don't do court.

The scam relies on scaring you into believing that the debt exists and that the law is on their side. It doesn't and it isn't.

Ignore these parasites, they will give up after a few letters.
Alexis
It's a mail scam. Ignore them completely.
strollingplayer
QUOTE (baileyGT60 @ Wed, 25 Nov 2009 - 22:22) *
"Parking charge notice"


If it's not a PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE, ignore the company, and report them to Trading Standards, the police and DVLA for trying to mislead you. DO NOT let the authorities fob you off. Deal with them and only them - never contact the company directly, and file away any correspondence from them - you'll need it to support your complaint. They're also good for a laugh in later life.

If they claim to be "Ltd." or "plc", check their registered company number is there, or that their address is a real street address not a PO Box. In those cases, also report them to Companies House. If they say anything about VAT but don't quote a VAT registration number, report them to HMRC.
ManxRed
Lines marked on the ground on private land (i.e. not council maintained roads or car parks) are meaningless in law. You have committed no 'offence' whatsoever by parking in a parent and child bay as the law does not recognise this as such. No matter what the signs might say.

Of course, they will not admit to this as they are actually attempting to mug you.

IGNORE THEM.
baileyGT60
Just email the DVla with this

I would like to know what right under the data protetion act
you have to give MY details out to unlawful compaines who use lies and decete and threats to obtain money.
If you take the time to examine Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 .
You wll see the above is true in relation to Private parking compaines.
There for you DO not have my permisson to past my details on to any third party usless it is a goverment office.
If you fail to abbied by the above i will seek address by legal means.

Thoughts please
ManxRed
They will send you a template reply saying your points have been taken on board and thanks for your letter.

They won't do anything about it though, they make £6m a year from people they know full well are operating a scam and defrauding people from money they don't actually owe anyone, so they won't let you get in their way.

Mind you, the more people who write these letters the better so well done for doing it.

Don't get your hopes up though!
strollingplayer
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Sat, 28 Nov 2009 - 19:31) *
They won't do anything about it though, they make £6m a year from people they know full well are operating a scam and defrauding people from money they don't actually owe anyone, so they won't let you get in their way.


1. According to their published statistics, they dealt with 800,000 requests last year. That's £2m.

2. They can't do anything about it. If they close it, those with a legitimate need to know can't enforce their own rights, and the PPCs have to turn to other tactics. What would you rather, an invoice you could ignore, or your car towed away and held to ransom?

If you want to keep blaming the DVLA for PPCs inflating the charges, you have to accept the blame for increasing petrol prices. Boo! Hiss! Down with ManxRed for pushing up the price at the pump!
ManxRed
What?


The?



Fu-??

biggrin.gif
Alexis
QUOTE
If they close it, those with a legitimate need to know can't enforce their own rights, and the PPCs have to turn to other tactics. What would you rather, an invoice you could ignore, or your car towed away and held to ransom?


No, just for them to turn down anyone without reasonable cause.

At the moment, there is no such thing as unreasonable cause. ANYONE can buy addresses, whether it's to legitimately trace or if you're a member of the Real IRA with a penchant for car bombs.
baileyGT60
Here is the Reply from dvla;

Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 provides for the release of information to the police, to local authorities for purposes connected with the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anyone who can demonstrate ‘reasonable cause’ to have it.



DVLA considers that for landowners, or their agents, to take action against vehicles that contravene parking restrictions, trespass on private land or for the removal of vehicles abandoned on their land is reasonable cause to release information.



DVLA does not and cannot regulate any aspect of a company’s business. Therefore it has no influence over the length of time keepers are allowed to park or any aspect of the tickets issued. This is a matter between the land owner and the company it employs to manage the car park. These and any other representations should be made to the company.



DVLA’s interest in relation to any company’s set up is in the context of ensuring that we meet our duty to ensure that we are aware of who information is being released to, for what reason, and how that information will be used. Information may then be disclosed under the ‘reasonable cause’ provisions.



Whilst seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate circumstances it is not a matter for the agency to decide on the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between two parties.



DVLA would be concerned if information were to be used for a purpose other than that it was requested for. If this were to occur, DVLA would ask the Information Commissioner to investigate the matter.


gt60

ArVee
QUOTE (baileyGT60 @ Mon, 30 Nov 2009 - 20:27) *
Here is the Reply from dvla;

DVLA ltd makes £2.50 from each enquiry, DVLA ltd needs to make a profit to pay for the European Union, DVLA ltd is above the law in regards to the DPA, DVLA ltd cannot accept responsibility for any crap you get through the post, DVLA ltd wishes you a nice day.


gt60


Eddited for truth smile.gif
ManxRed
QUOTE (baileyGT60 @ Mon, 30 Nov 2009 - 20:27) *
Here is the Reply from dvla;

Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 provides for the release of information to the police, to local authorities for purposes connected with the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anyone who can demonstrate ‘reasonable cause’ to have it.


You see, (apart from strollingplayer that is), the first bit of this sentence is fine. Its when you get to the last bit (in bold) that you see the neat little get out clause which enables the DVLA to rake in the cash, and knowingly urinate over the public at large, as they suddenly become 'complicit' in the scam. If there is anyone out there (strollingplayer?) who honestly believes that the DVLA don't know that what the PPCs are doing is unlawful in itself then you have my sympathy.


PS - Apologies if this pushes the price of petrol up again. wacko.gif
bama
'reasonable cause' undefined in law so its their get out. what the DVLA demonstrably fails to do is to make sure that the ATA (the BPA in the case of PPCs) enforces its 'Code of Practice'. ALL AOS PPCs ignore the BPA CoP despite having signed up to it. The BPA forced them to sign up due to the impact of the CPUTR. the BPA HAD to cover its CPUTR ar$e.

But the DVLA is not stepping up to its responsibilities re this ATA.

Focusing complaints on the release of data itself will always get batted away with 'reasonable cause'.
ALWAYS got for the breach of the CoP by the PPC and the DVLA being remiss with this ATA - as per the FAQ.

Alexis
Anybody who wants to pay £2.50 must have reasonable cause for wanting to do so.

Therefore it is impossible for anyone NOT to have unreasonable cause at any point.

That's how the loony DVLA see it.

All pays for their irritating personalised numberplate ads and the threatening car crushing ones.

strollingplayer
QUOTE (baileyGT60 @ Mon, 30 Nov 2009 - 20:27) *
Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 provides for the release of information to the police, to local authorities for purposes connected with the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anyone who can demonstrate ‘reasonable cause’ to have it.


Nothing really wrong in that. Anyone tried applying in large volumes stating entirely frivolous reasons on the relevant section of the form? Anyone have copies of the forms that have been sent by the scammers to see what they're sending? If they're lying on the form, there's little DVLA could do about it - they've received a form which states a reason for requesting the details which is probably compelling, along with a signed declaration that what's said there is true. If that's all I've got in front of me, how do I know that it's false? Until someone finds a reliable technology for enabling telepathy, there's no way they can know in advance that someone has lied on the form. That's an unavoidable, unalterable fact.

QUOTE
DVLA considers that for landowners, or their agents, to take action against vehicles that contravene parking restrictions, trespass on private land or for the removal of vehicles abandoned on their land is reasonable cause to release information.


As much as I'd rather the police would deal with this, there's little to disagree with here. The alternative is that law-abiding folk in the country can't do anything about cars dumped on their fields, and PPCs return to clamping again - end result is that you wind up in court having to get your money back, rather than not parting with it in the first place.

QUOTE
DVLA does not and cannot regulate any aspect of a company’s business. Therefore it has no influence over the length of time keepers are allowed to park or any aspect of the tickets issued. This is a matter between the land owner and the company it employs to manage the car park. These and any other representations should be made to the company.


That's important. DVLA cannot regulate these companies. Even if they did, we'd only end up with a repeat of the £12 mess we saw from the OFT - a report said "We would intervene on any fee over £12", the banks suddenly started claiming "OFT said we're allowed to charge £12". Before you know it, you're having to fight PPCs in court, instead of safely ignoring them.

QUOTE
DVLA’s interest in relation to any company’s set up is in the context of ensuring that we meet our duty to ensure that we are aware of who information is being released to, for what reason, and how that information will be used. Information may then be disclosed under the ‘reasonable cause’ provisions.


If they're being lied to, they believe they know who they are giving the information to. They have no way of knowing otherwise until after the information is released. Another insurmountable.

QUOTE
Whilst seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate circumstances it is not a matter for the agency to decide on the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between two parties.


Another important point. If the DVLA started making serious decisions in this respect, they would likely ground to a halt, and the scammers would find ever more elaborate ways of getting the result in their favour.

QUOTE
DVLA would be concerned if information were to be used for a purpose other than that it was requested for. If this were to occur, DVLA would ask the Information Commissioner to investigate the matter.


This is academic - if the purpose on the form is worded carefully enough, it's arguable that scammers aren't using the information for a purpose other than that it was requested for. To demonstrate otherwise would either require going to court or appointing DVLA as a regulator.

QUOTE
You see, (apart from strollingplayer that is), the first bit of this sentence is fine. Its when you get to the last bit (in bold) that you see the neat little get out clause which enables the DVLA to rake in the cash, and knowingly urinate over the public at large, as they suddenly become 'complicit' in the scam.


Easy choice here - provide evidence, or drop it. I'm rarely convinced by conspiracy theories, and I'm still not convinced that this is anything more than that.

QUOTE (Alexis @ Tue, 1 Dec 2009 - 12:56) *
Anybody who wants to pay £2.50 must have reasonable cause for wanting to do so.

Therefore it is impossible for anyone NOT to have unreasonable cause at any point.

That's how the loony DVLA see it.

All pays for their irritating personalised numberplate ads and the threatening car crushing ones.


Sorry, but without any supporting evidence, that line of reasoning sounds ignorant - "zomg they don't agree with me, they must be wrong!". Without having sight of the guidelines they use to judge each case (they will be required to have them and produce them on demand), and a sample of the bogus forms to compare them to, I can't agree with that line. I know the DVLA can be incompetent at the best of times (reissung VRMs, losing entitlement records, etc.), but I'm not prepared to accept this argument without solid evidence. "Cock-up before conspiracy" - and government agencies are extraordinarily good at cocking up. I should know - I used to work for one.
ManxRed
Do you work for the DVLA by any chance?

You still haven't addressed why they include the last part of the sentence I highlighted (....., and to anyone who can demonstrate reasonable cause to have it) when clearly the first part of the sentence covers all the legal bits quite adequately. There's absolutely no need for that last bit unless you know that you need to open access to people who don't legitimately need the information.

I have no evidence, except that I find it highly unlikely that every single person at the DVLA is completely unaware of the PPC scam, especially when I have seen on my own TV, Dom Littlewood discussing it with them. One of us is being naive here, and it isn't me.
Alexis
QUOTE
Sorry, but without any supporting evidence, that line of reasoning sounds ignorant - "zomg they don't agree with me, they must be wrong!". Without having sight of the guidelines they use to judge each case (they will be required to have them and produce them on demand), and a sample of the bogus forms to compare them to, I can't agree with that line.


They don't judge cases, they sell addresses.

Every parking company V888 is bogus. How can they not be? Why do we see cases where companies take keepers to court only for them to thrown out because the keeper wasn't the driver?

V888 is a box ticking exercise - evidence of reasonable cause is not required.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.