PPC Letter Chains & Court Papers (discussion & comments)

Spider_Soprano

The PPC isn't prosecuted because sticking a fake ticket on a windscreen and sending reminders (threatograms) for payment isn't against the law. I know, it's absolutely mind boggling what they try to get away with. They operate right on the edge of what is legal, and if anyone needs convincing that they are total bottom feeders, I'll send them to your post. Scaring grandparents into paying speculative invoices is as low as it gets.

Sir_Roger_deLodger

note wrote: »

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.

Rubbish. The parking company has not lost a penny.

note wrote: »

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

How do you quantify potential trade? I'd love to see a supermarket prove in court that the imaginary bloke who couldnt park was going to buy a widescreen telly and a case of vintage champagne rather than a packet of fags and a copy of the Sun.

note_2

Sir_Roger_deLodger wrote: »

Rubbish. The parking company has not lost a penny.



How do you quantify potential trade? I'd love to see a supermarket prove in court that the imaginary bloke who couldnt park was going to buy a widescreen telly and a case of vintage champagne rather than a packet of fags and a copy of the Sun.

ok, say i'm in town, i find a car park signed and it says £1 per hour, i ignore this and stay 3 hours without paying.

personally i think its fair to pay the parking charge of £3 (3 x £1) + whatever small administrative charge, say up to £5. therefore £8 seems very reasonable.

as for quantifying trade thing, its an oft used example on honest johns advice letters. something like if the car park is empty then it makes no difference to them if you were there or not, if you denied a real customer a parking space then apparently according to him you should offer them £10 as a full and final settlement. as you can see i'm confused as to whether to ignore or do the above, which seems a reasonable course of action to take...

and by the way my grandparent hasnt been given a ticket, i was just saying that she could very easily be bullied into paying one of these so called PCNs. but no doubt they use their intimidation and harassment tactics to get vulnerable people to pay these PCNs

surfboy1

note wrote: »

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.

Please dont let the PCC scum have your grandparent address, they would fleece them .
It is up to us members of the public to make everyone aware of how these PPC parasites opperate.
Politicians are not interested unless it is their grandparents getting fleeced.It is up to us to make sure they become interested.
I bet if any grandparents of a PPC were to get a speculative invoice they would be told to ignore it, yet the same people would post on these forums trying to convince you to pay them.
They dont have any morals at all !!

surfboy1

note wrote: »

ok, say i'm in town, i find a car park signed and it says £1 per hour, i ignore this and stay 3 hours without paying.

personally i think its fair to pay the parking charge of £3 (3 x £1) + whatever small administrative charge, say up to £5. therefore £8 seems very reasonable.

as for quantifying trade thing, its an oft used example on honest johns advice letters. something like if the car park is empty then it makes no difference to them if you were there or not, if you denied a real customer a parking space then apparently according to him you should offer them £10 as a full and final settlement. as you can see i'm confused as to whether to ignore or do the above, which seems a reasonable course of action to take...

and by the way my grandparent hasnt been given a ticket, i was just saying that she could very easily be bullied into paying one of these so called PCNs. but no doubt they use their intimidation and harassment tactics to get vulnerable people to pay these PCNs

£10 may seem a good sum to pay for your "offence".
But why do you think that the PPC deserves your £10 ?
Surely the £10 should go to the store?
Maybe it would be a better idea, if you realy feel the need to part with £10, to put it into the charity box in the supermarket?

The PPC , who is only iterested in making money, and nothing else, should not be proffiting from this, they may even be driving customers from the store by their actions, but they are not interested in the store , all they want is YOUR money.

note_2

i quote from the landmark case

You have to prove what damage
or what losses Wickes lost, not what you lost, what Wickes lost, by me being parked there. If that car
park was choc-a-bloc full to the brim and I parked and stopped someone getting in who was going to
buy £200 in equipment, fair enough.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231

the defendant specifically said that because no-one was parked there the store lost no money and incurred no loss as a result of him being there. but that if he stopped someone parking there and buying stuff then 'fair enough' presumably meaning he's accepting liability. but then i suppose its over to the PPC to prove someone was going to spend money as a result of him not parking there, which would be very difficult probably

but i agree actually, if the supermarket charges £3 for 3 hours then you should write a cheque to them for that amount, dont see what claim a parking management firm has to that money.

in fact i'll write up the advice honest john gave someone here tommorow

Stephen_Leak

If you choose to pay the car park owner (not the private parking company) more than you legally owe, then I would respect your decision.

In your first example, if the car park owner did take you to court, they could claim a "genuine pre-estimate of their liquidated losses" and add their court costs.

However, in the second example, "speculative losses" are specifically excluded from claims. The car park owner couldn't claim anything from you in the first place, so there couldn't be any other costs.

Also, we recommend paying any unpaid charge to the car park owner as a "pre-emptive strike". The car park owner hasn't written to you and it doesn't cost the car park owner anything to cash a cheque.

bazster

note wrote: »

ok, say i'm in town, i find a car park signed and it says £1 per hour, i ignore this and stay 3 hours without paying.

personally i think its fair to pay the parking charge of £3 (3 x £1) + whatever small administrative charge, say up to £5. therefore £8 seems very reasonable.

as for quantifying trade thing, its an oft used example on honest johns advice letters. something like if the car park is empty then it makes no difference to them if you were there or not, if you denied a real customer a parking space then apparently according to him you should offer them £10 as a full and final settlement. as you can see i'm confused as to whether to ignore or do the above, which seems a reasonable course of action to take...

The flaw in all this is that you are not dealing with reasonable people.

And in any case, the £3 you should've paid for parking is owed to the landowner, not their squatters.

note_2

bazster wrote: »

The flaw in all this is that you are not dealing with reasonable people.

And in any case, the £3 you should've paid for parking is owed to the landowner, not their squatters.

good answer

if i was a supermarket manager, would a PPC company pay me good money to look after my car park? surely it would be better to send out a member of staff every hour to check on the cars? they then keep whatever number of £60s they can get from people. only downside is that if you !!!! off a customer he could very easily switch supermarket and cost them tens of thousands long term for the sake of a parking ticket.

Stephen_Leak

The deal is usually that, if it's a pay car park, the car park owner keeps the revenue from the machines. The private ticketing firm keeps the revenue from the tickets.

Supermarkets could use a member of staff to manage, not enforce, the car park, but the poor person would probably get nothing but verbal, possibly even physical, abuse.