PPC Letter Chains & Court Papers (discussion & comments)

Stephen_Leak

ClaretMatt wrote: »

Good afternoon everyone!

I got invoiced for the first time of my driving career on private land today, it would seem to be by a new company about which not much is known (Norfolk Parking Enforcement)

I'm not going to correspond with them any further (Drove past the scammer while he was writing another one out, thanking him for his pointless invoice with a big grin)

Will of course, post up the chain as I receive it in due course but

I have a question for the floor: When the new parking laws come into effect from October 2012, am I reading it correctly that the Registered Keeper is going to be liable if the driver cannot be identified (if we keep ignoring the goons, like now for example)

Many thanks, have tried to find a discussion on this point without success thus far.

A new name to me too. Hello, NPE. :hello: We look forward to depriving you of as much money as possible.

We're really waiting to see how the PTC's misquote RK liability in their letters. I personally expect them to intimate that the RK now has to pay up.

It doesn't make anything else PTC's do to try and get victims to pay up any less unlawful.

And, since the VCS vs. HMRC (Appeal) ruling in May, only the car park owner can offer parking and take alleged offenders to court.

ClaretMatt_2

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

A new name to me too. Hello, NPE. :wave: We look forward to depriving you of as much money as possible.

We're really waiting to see how the PTC's misquote RK liability in their letters. I personally expect them to intimate that the RK now has to pay up.

It doesn't make anything else PTC's do to try and get victims to pay up any less unlawful.

And, since the VCS vs. HMRC (Appeal) ruling in May, only the car park owner can offer parking and take alleged offenders to court.

Oh, and is it not the case that the RK is liable under the new rules? That's how it read to me anyway

Ah that's fine, they don't even have a leg to stand on to claim damages, as it's a Free/Residents car park in combination (I mistakenly parked in a residents bay)

I'm having real difficulty not doing something crazy, like wiping my !!!! on the invoice and posting it back, or using their anonymous emailing system on thier website to taunt them... Help me!

w's dot parkingprotection dot co dot uk for anyone interested

Been a company since May 2012 apparently

Stephen_Leak

ClaretMatt wrote: »

Oh, and is it not the case that the RK is liable under the new rules? That's how it read to me anyway <snip>

That's exactly what I expect the PTCs to try and exploit. The RK is liable ... to receive the threatening letters. That, as now, doesn't mean that the recipient has to pay.

trisontana

NORFOLK PARKING ENFORCEMENT LIMITED
THE STUDIO ST. NICHOLAS CLOSE
ELSTREE
BOREHAMWOOD
HERTFORDSHIRE
ENGLAND
WD6 3EW
Company No. 08031075

That Borehamwood address looks familier.

Website:-
http://www.parkingprotection.co.uk/index.html

Gems from said website:-

The installation of our official and approved warning signs is proven to reduce illegal parking by over 90%!

With nearly a decade of experience NPE has become the industry standard for Car Park Management and Parking Enforcement in Norfolk.

Hang on, I thought they have only been in existence for three months?

Our local civil enforcement officers are all licensed to issue Parking Charge Notices

"civil enforcement officers" they are not!

note_2

i refer to the above picture of a PCN uploaded by longtimelurkersam.

they ask him who was driving so they have no idea who was the driver who the PCN should be given to.

if they cannot prove / dont know who was the driver does this mean they have zero chance of charging you?

just trying to educate myself a bit incase i come across one of these scumbags

peter_the_piper

""The installation of our official and approved warning signs is proven to reduce illegal parking by over 90%!""
As no parking on private ground is illegal then the signs either work 100% or 0%

Coupon-mad

note wrote: »

i refer to the above picture of a PCN uploaded by longtimelurkersam.

they ask him who was driving so they have no idea who was the driver who the PCN should be given to.

if they cannot prove / dont know who was the driver does this mean they have zero chance of charging you?

just trying to educate myself a bit incase i come across one of these scumbags

That is the case now for any fake PCN issued before October 1st, they can only possibly aim their scam at a driver.

And they have zero chance even if the driver has been daft enough to write what they believe is an appeal (LOL!) and name themselves as driving. There is loads more to it than who was driving, loads more.

After 1st October it just means that their scam can be aimed at the registered keeper if the driver is not named. Doesn't change the fact it's an unenforceable fake PCN though!

Pepipoo forums will no doubt come up with a recommended reply to fake PCNs received after 1st October, as the plan is to 'use and abuse' the POPLA independent appeals procedure and cost the PPCs money. They have to pay £27 PLUS VAT for every single case referred, whether they 'win' or not.

And even if they 'win' it is NOT BINDING on the keeper/driver. LOL! So they can just carry on ignoring the usual letter chain. Very very rare cases that may get a Small Claim tried, can get a robust appeal from pepipoo and the PPC would lose (almost unheard of though, it's a mail scam really, that's all).

ClaretMatt_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That is the case now for any fake PCN issued before October 1st, they can only possibly aim their scam at a driver.

And they have zero chance even if the driver has been daft enough to write what they believe is an appeal (LOL!) and name themselves as driving. There is loads more to it than who was driving, loads more.

After 1st October it just means that their scam can be aimed at the registered keeper if the driver is not named. Doesn't change the fact it's an unenforceable fake PCN though!

Pepipoo forums will no doubt come up with a recommended reply to fake PCNs received after 1st October, as the plan is to 'use and abuse' the POPLA independent appeals procedure and cost the PPCs money. They have to pay £27 PLUS VAT for every single case referred, whether they 'win' or not.

And even if they 'win' it is NOT BINDING on the keeper/driver. LOL! So they can just carry on ignoring the usual letter chain. Very very rare cases that may get a Small Claim tried, can get a robust appeal from pepipoo and the PPC would lose (almost unheard of though, it's a mail scam really, that's all).

Looks like the PPC's are properly screwed

Coupon-mad

Yes, but only if people know what to do.

An uninformed person might just pay up or appeal. After October 1st who knows what silly decisions the POPLA system may come up with? Certainly if they allow any fake PCNs then the PPC in question will be all over the person like a rash with ever more 'scary letters' citing the 'decision' and suggesting that it's binding when it isn't.

I can still see plenty of victims paying. :mad:

note_2

many thanks for that information coupon.

i am a telegraph reader and noticed in their 'honest john' motoring letters section that he advises to pay the company '£10 in full and final settlement' something perhaps due to the company losing money due to you not paying their charge + reasonable costs / compensation.

i assume this is payable if you have lost e.g. a supermarket potential trade if its full and you arent a customer.

i am genuinly gobsmacked that the advice i have seen on watchdog via a member on here advises to completely ignore parking charges. if they are invalid then why the heck dont the government make this clearer, why arent they prosecuted?

my grandparent isnt in a good state mentally and with an official looking letter from one of these scumbags would undoubtably pay instantly to avoid trouble. even if i gave her proof they are not payable, then repeated letters and harassment from a company would make her worry, absolutely disgusting these people are.