parking ticket from excel parking services limited

Coupon-mad

Panandul wrote: »

I posted here on 29/01/2011 about a Parking Charge Notice that i received from Excel , i followed the advice given here and ignored the 2 letters that they sent me about the same parking charge , today i got 2 more letters with different reference numbers about the same incident ( looks like they are trying to charge me twice ) this letter states that they are intending to take me to court .

I have read the advice that most of you have posted on here all i would like to know is .... Am I safe to continue to ignore these letters as most of you have said ?

Many thanks ....

I posted this link above, only yesterday (post 132 just above here).

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

Start at the top, read the stickies by Crabman, look at the letters, look at the Watchdog link. The info is all there already and of course you are safe.

leon103

Martins report states if you did break the car parks conditions i.e. stay over maximum period then you should pay the ticket.

Is this true.

Watchdog video says they will take you to court if they can prove who the driver was. I suppose Excel don't have camera's in the carparks?

trisontana

leon103 wrote: »

Martins report states if you did break the car parks conditions i.e. stay over maximum period then you should pay the ticket.

Is this true.

Watchdog video says they will take you to court if they can prove who the driver was. I suppose Excel don't have camera's in the carparks?

You are completely misreading that advice. I don't think Martin does say that. 99.9% of the time PPCs don't take people to court becuase they know they won't win.

leon103

I read "Of course, landowners have a right to charge for and police proper parking. If you’ve broken those rules, and you think the ticket isn’t exorbitant, I’d urge you to pay up"

Ok £60 is a lot in my eyes for a ticket but its what Councils etc charge

trisontana

leon103 wrote: »

I read "Of course, landowners have a right to charge for and police proper parking. If you’ve broken those rules, and you think the ticket isn’t exorbitant, I’d urge you to pay up"

Ok £60 is a lot in my eyes for a ticket but its what Councils etc charge

Council tickets are covered by statute law. This does not apply to private parking tickets which are covered by civil law. This states that one private citizen cannot punish another private citizen . Any money demanded by the parking company that does not reflect the actual loss suffered by the land owner would be considered an unfair penalty (punishment) and would be thrown out of court.

Coupon-mad

leon103 wrote: »

Martins report states if you did break the car parks conditions i.e. stay over maximum period then you should pay the ticket.

Is this true.

Watchdog video says they will take you to court if they can prove who the driver was. I suppose Excel don't have camera's in the carparks?

Don't be daft, you haven't read enough. A private company has NO power to fine you.

How do you think a camera matters, when the fake PCN made into a paper aeroplane on Watchdog was one with a pretty picture on it too? Some PPCs use cameras, so what? A pic of a car. No driver. Or maybe (unlikely) a pic of a car with a driver - but who was that driver, how the heck do you think a private company can ID a face? Stop fretting!!

The Watchdog video certainly does NOT say they WILL take you to Court if they know who was driving! Almost no PPC ever thinks about Court - even where the driver has been credulous enough to write and say 'I was driving' thinking that they are penning an 'appeal' (as if)!

Oh, and Martin's article is ancient, years old, he's a journalist and has to tread a fine line I guess. He also says don't pay if a ticket is UNFAIR. Seeing as they are fake PCNs for made up, extortionate amounts completely unrelated to any loss, then these tickets are ALL UNFAIR.

- The way the fake tickets pass themselves off as 'PCNs' (same initials as Council tickets, same appearance as Council tickets in most cases), is UNFAIR.

- The pretence of an 'appeals process' that doesn't actually exist and which always results in a rejection (of course) is UNFAIR.

- As is the threatogram letter-chain that they then bombard you with? - UNFAIR and indeed breaking the OfT debt collector guidelines as well as some laws, we believe.

Forget about it, just collect those 'scary letters' that match our top sticky thread.

esmerobbo

leon103 wrote: »

I read "Of course, landowners have a right to charge for and police proper parking. If you’ve broken those rules, and you think the ticket isn’t exorbitant, I’d urge you to pay up"

Ok £60 is a lot in my eyes for a ticket but its what Councils etc charge

Did you use the facilities at the car park? Or did you park and go elsewhere!

If you used them then why would you owe them anything! Who has the right to say you must do your shopping within two hours?

If you parked there and went elsewhere they have a right to recover any loss they suffered. What would that be? no where near £60 I bet.

Council tickets are a lot different, the are regulated, and you can appeal and win!

celtictrace

I have also received a parking notice from Excel for "parking in a restricted area" and am in possession of their own photographic evidence that shows my car between two white lines (which were apparently "greyed" out). I am adamant that I will not pay this fine but was wondering if anyone knows whether the process of unwanted mail can be reduced if I notify them that I am refusing to pay and am willing to be taken to Court?

Many thanks!

trisontana

celtictrace wrote: »

I have also received a parking notice from Excel for "parking in a restricted area" and am in possession of their own photographic evidence that shows my car between two white lines (which were apparently "greyed" out). I am adamant that I will not pay this fine but was wondering if anyone knows whether the process of unwanted mail can be reduced if I notify them that I am refusing to pay and am willing to be taken to Court?



Many thanks!

The so-called "photographic evidence" will show an image of a car but they have no way of identifying the driver from that picture. You are correct, keep ignoring. They won't take you to court.

Sir_Roger_deLodger

celtictrace wrote: »

I am adamant that I will not pay this fine but was wondering if anyone knows whether the process of unwanted mail can be reduced if I notify them that I am refusing to pay and am willing to be taken to Court?

Contacting them in any way will actually increase the amount of junk mail.
Oh, and its not a fine!