IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Meteor / Southeastern Parking

135678

Comments

  • Livingthedream
    Livingthedream Posts: 2,643 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    panders wrote: »
    <snip> the last notice I got of "intended legal action" from Graham White Solicitors <snip>

    Graham White Solicitors, enough said!
    Whoa! This image violates our terms of use and has been removed from view
  • jlsmith_2
    jlsmith_2 Posts: 44 Forumite
    I have had a letter back from Meteor who said they 'appreciate' the points I have made but are unable to get involved as the case has been passed to debt recovery. Their letter also states that they only adminster parking on behalf of Southeastern and that SE will deal with 'debt recovery' - but I would have thought my 'contract' is with Meteor rather than Southeastern. Anyway I've heard nothing from Debt Recovery Prosecution services (a branch of Southeastern) since my letter denying the legitimacy of the tickets. I guess they are crafting an expert legal response, which no dobut will fail to explain why I am not being taken to magistrates court despite their threats.
  • HO87
    HO87 Posts: 4,296 Forumite
    For the uninitiated, Graham White Solicitors are a well known (to this board) arm of Roxburghe's debt collectors based in West Byfleet and not in the traditional sense a "real" solicitor. Besides, there is only one solicitor practising under this title, according to the Law Society, one Michael Sobell who is now in his 70's

    So you can understand the picture with this outfit, Roxburghe's are currently under threat of their debt collector's licence being revoked because of an OFT investigation and Graham White's are being investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016). :(

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
  • Stigy
    Stigy Posts: 1,581 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker First Post
    jlsmith wrote: »
    I would have thought my 'contract' is with Meteor rather than Southeastern.
    Meteor act as an agent for SET. It's a SET car park, not a Meteor one.
  • jlsmith_2
    jlsmith_2 Posts: 44 Forumite
    Stigy, thanks - but I'm still unclear about where this will end up iro threats of magistrates courts under byelaws. The ticket was issued by Meteor for a breach of T&Cs, so does anyone know if it possible for Southeastern to turn this into a byelaw issue and pursue through mag. court? Or is it an empty/illegal threat?
  • Stigy
    Stigy Posts: 1,581 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker First Post
    jlsmith wrote: »
    Stigy, thanks - but I'm still unclear about where this will end up iro threats of magistrates courts under byelaws. The ticket was issued by Meteor for a breach of T&Cs, so does anyone know if it possible for Southeastern to turn this into a byelaw issue and pursue through mag. court? Or is it an empty/illegal threat?
    Judging by the look of the PCN, I'd say they probably only intend to use the CC as oposed to the Mags court. I'd tread carefully, but probably wait for their next move. If they send you letter after letter of empty threats, then I'd say they have no intention of using the Mags court. However, if your next letter states they intend to prosecute under railway byelaw 14.1, and they mention Magistrates' Court, I'd write back ASAP.
  • geordieracer
    geordieracer Posts: 2,637 Forumite
    Stigy wrote: »
    Judging by the look of the PCN, I'd say they probably only intend to use the CC as oposed to the Mags court. I'd tread carefully, but probably wait for their next move. If they send you letter after letter of empty threats, then I'd say they have no intention of using the Mags court. However, if your next letter states they intend to prosecute under railway byelaw 14.1, and they mention Magistrates' Court, I'd write back ASAP.

    Indeed. In fact i know of a TOC who is looking into whether or not its going to be worth seeing how far the PPC get with demands for payment and if no luck going straight to to prosecution under the byelaw which wont be good.


    BTW OP can i just ask how you have 3 of these tickets now? Did you forget to pay to go into the car park or what?
    one of the famous 5:kiss:
  • Coblcris
    Coblcris Posts: 1,862 Forumite
    They will lose more by going the statutory route in my opinion.
    Empirically speaking they would all be using the byelaws properly now of there was money it it for them.
    One does not need to break down the business model of enforcing the byelaws through the courts too much but a little thought on that matter is enough.
  • geordieracer
    geordieracer Posts: 2,637 Forumite
    Its not a real case of them making money from taking people to court - its to get the message out that they can do just this and sort out the car parking as too many people all over the country just do not pay to park or take the pi55 with their parking and cause disruption to the majority of other car park users.
    one of the famous 5:kiss:
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 131,404 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    geordieracer wrote: »
    Its not a real case of them making money from taking people to court - its to get the message out that they can do just this and sort out the car parking as too many people all over the country just do not pay to park or take the pi55 with their parking and cause disruption to the majority of other car park users.



    Isn't it because car parks have generally stayed the same size for years whereas certain train services have become much busier? Add to that the fact that more people drive than was the case years ago, and may not live very close to the station.

    Too many cars for too few spaces.

    I feel sorry for the commuters personally, rushing to catch a train then finding no bays, possibly then spotting a clear edge in a corner of the car park which would not cause an obstruction. Desperately leave their car only to find a pseudo-PCN on their return from their expensive train journey. Especially annoying when you see some station car parks with plenty more space possible if only some more bays were created out of the adjoining scrubland.

    On the subject of station car park lack of spaces, do you reckon 'your' car parks have enough disabled spaces to comply with the new law then?! :D
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards