Graham White Soliciters Over Apcoa Parking Fines

adc82140

Don't forget also that they will NEVER uphold any "appeal", simply because you're appealing to the company that is trying to part you from your cash. The "appeals" process would not stand up in any court, as it has no legal standing, which is one of the many reasons why APCOA and the like would not step anywhere near a court room.

shizzlemyjizzle

I'd just like to thank previous authors on this thread who made me keep the faith and not buckle to the intimidating letters of Vehicle Control Services, Roxburghe Debt collectors and then Graham White Solicitors.

My original "Parking Charge Notice" was posted on my car on 11/8/2010 - £80 for parking on my drive in front of my property having moved in the previous day, without a permit.

I wrote a polite letter explaining this which they rebuffed. I then ignored further letters despite increasing charges being mentioned. Two further letters from Vehicle Control Services including a final demand notice on 17/9/2010 for £120. Plenty of court action being threatened throughout.

It was then handed to Roxburghe Debt Collectors, letter in October demanding £161.12. This was then handed to Graham White with a "Final warning" on pushing the baliffs and substantial legal costs at me on top. I ignored all letters since my first response and have heard no more from them. Thanks for making us all aware of this scam :T

wrington

My husband parked the car at a railway station in and used his mobile and business credit card to pay Apcoa the parking fee. Upon returning to the car in the evening he had been issued with a £80.00 fine (£50.00 if paid early). He obtained a copy of the company credit card statement and sent it to Apcoa with a letter stating that the fine was wrong. We heard nothing and thought the problem was resolved. Today I (as car is in my name) received a letter from Roxburgh Debt Collectors stating that as the initial fine wasn't paid we now owe £127.00. We have no phone number for Apcoa and Roxburgh say that as it has been passed to them Apcoa will no longer deal with us. My husband sent an email to Apcoa today re-iterating his previous letter, but what do we do?

PLEASE......any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Driver8

wrington wrote: »

My husband parked the car at a railway station in and used his mobile and business credit card to pay Apcoa the parking fee. Upon returning to the car in the evening he had been issued with a £80.00 fine (£50.00 if paid early). He obtained a copy of the company credit card statement and sent it to Apcoa with a letter stating that the fine was wrong. We heard nothing and thought the problem was resolved. Today I (as car is in my name) received a letter from Roxburgh Debt Collectors stating that as the initial fine wasn't paid we now owe £127.00. We have no phone number for Apcoa and Roxburgh say that as it has been passed to them Apcoa will no longer deal with us. My husband sent an email to Apcoa today re-iterating his previous letter, but what do we do?

PLEASE......any advice would be greatly appreciated.

You have paid for the parking, you will have proof too, not that you need it. Just totally ignore them, that's it, ignore them.

Sit down with your hubby, with a bottle of wine, for an hour or two going through all the threads here and just chill when you realise what a total sc@@ err the demands for money are.

Absolutely nothing is going to happen to you, no one is going to affect your credit rating, you do not have a credit agreement with them, they will not knock on your door, it is just utter total bluff and the wording in the letters are designed to get a reaction like you have shown.

Just relax, sleep tight enjoy that wine and just chill and be happy in the knowledge that the letters they are sending you are costing them money not YOU.

Seriously, just read some of the threads then you will realise how low some scum of the earth will stoop to try and extort money from people. trust me they are not sleeping too well because their money demanding days will soon be over.

Now what you need to do is tell all your family and friends and friends of friends just what is going on.

You found this site just Google Roxborough letters and ACPOA and see what you come up with. Also Google private parking tickets.

Googled it? Feel better? See, just relax enjoy the wine and chill and laugh at them that you haven't been robbed.

Were there any bylaws on the ticket by the way?

Ideflin

Hello!

I have been following threads in forums about how APCOA, Graham White and Roxburghe play their game.
I have a small collection of their letters and following advice from this forums by never replying and ignoring their threats. All good and never had a problem with them.

However, I have a thought that has been hunting me for some time:
It seems like a Landowner has no power to protect their land, if all they can do is send the APCOAs and clampers your way. Is there nothing at all they can do?
I mean, why would someone bother paying for a ticket when parking in private land if he knows that APCOA won't be able to do anything about it than trying to scare you off?

Put in a different way: What is to stop someone from abusing the fact that APCOA is in charge of a car park by parking without paying tickets, on yellow lines or right across the car park in the most obstructing possible way... and still expect to get away with it?
Something doesn't add up!! Are they really that powerless?
Any ideas?

Peter.

esmerobbo

There not powerless at all, many companies make huge profits out of running car parks. The definitive word is running. They choose to use PPC's were they receive a portion of any charges received. The PPC's rely on peoples lack of knowledge and hope a percentage will pay. Say a company issues 100 invoices a week for £50 and they claim 30 to 40% pay they will receive £1500 to £2000 per week! they give the owner say 10% so £150 to £200.

Its easy money for both and costs the landowner nothing. Its only when we inform and reduce the percentage of people paying, hence making it unprofitable we will then see the landowners having to do it properly.

nalin

Any comment on the following letter I have received from Graham White -

My clients are now offering you a final opportunity to arrange settlement of the of the total amount due as shown above, or provide me with the information as to who was driving the car at the time of the contraventin, if you were not the driver.

The purpose of this letter is to ut you on notice that if I do not receive either payment or details of who was driving the car at the time of the contraventin within 14 days of the date of this letter,I intend to seek my clients instructions to apply for an Application to the Court under 'Civil Procedure Rules 31.16 - Declaration Before Proceedings Start'.

The effect of this order will be to involve you in any legal proceedings raised by my clients in connection with this debt. An extract of CPR 31.16 is below for your information .......................

I do feel it is important for you to understand that although you,the Registered Keeper,may not have been the driver at the time, you would come within the definitlion of 'likely' to be a part to any proceedings my clients may inititate.

If you were not the drive at the time ..................I suggest you seek independent legal advice ....

esmerobbo

One word Claptrap!
They realise now that more people know the RK has no responsibly for any charge they think may be due. So this is another little ploy.

That section quoted is for the declaration of any documents however it is not relevant for small claims! .

May in the letter you received being the relative word!

esmerobbo

This is the section they are quoting for reference, but it does not apply.

Disclosure before proceedings start

31.16
(1)This rule applies where an application is made to the court under any Act for disclosure before proceedings have started1.

(2)The application must be supported by evidence.

(3)The court may make an order under this rule only where –

(a)the respondent is likely to be a party to subsequent proceedings;

(b)the applicant is also likely to be a party to those proceedings;

(c)if proceedings had started, the respondent’s duty by way of standard disclosure, set out in rule 31.6, would extend to the documents or classes of documents of which the applicant seeks disclosure; and

(d)disclosure before proceedings have started is desirable in order to –

(i)dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings;

(ii)assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings; or

(iii)save costs.

(4)An order under this rule must –

(a)specify the documents or the classes of documents which the respondent must disclose; and

(b)require him, when making disclosure, to specify any of those documents –

(i)which are no longer in his control; or

(ii)in respect of which he claims a right or duty to withhold inspection.

(5)Such an order may –

(a)require the respondent to indicate what has happened to any documents which are no longer in his control; and

(b)specify the time and place for disclosure and inspection.

vax2002

The one Roxbourge sent me was machine Franked stamped, unfortunately I accidentally keep putting it back in the postbox everyday.. must be costing them a fortune,,,