Do CPS exist? Am I being Phished?

Johnna_2

Issued by Combined Parking Solutions,
PO Box 4487
Wolverhampton
WV1 9BP
xxx
reg no x123 xxx

Location: xx* (sic) Social Club, xx
Incident date: xxx

Dear Mr xx xx,
The above vehicle was parked in contravention of the displayed warning signs, which are displayed on this private car park and stated "CLEARLY DISPLAYED CPS PERMITS ONLY"
A parking charge notice was attached to the vehicle and according to our records this amount is still outstanding and no appeal against the issue has been recieved.
The notice clearly states any appeal should be made within 14 days, after this date no appeal will be entered into and the full charge will become immediately payable.
As the authorised agents, we advise you that you are therefore required to pay the sum of £85 within 14-days from the date of this letter to this office, failure to do so will result in legal proceedings being taken against you (as the registered keeper) in the county court.
We are also obliged to advise you that once legal proceedings have commenced, the fee will increase to £135, plus court issue costs and interest.
This communication is now sent to you as a formal letter before claim in accordance with the Practice Direction relating to pre-action protocols contained within the Civil Procedure Rules, a copy is obtainable from your local county court or online by visiting

*weblink removed*

Information recieved from DVLA today shows that on the incident date you were the registered keeper of the vehicle to which this parking charge notice was issued. You are therefore asked to reply to this letter by either paying directly the full amount due or, alternatively, providing a detailed letter of response stating why the parking charge is disputed.
You are formally put on notice that if you do respond to this letter by stating that you were not the driver, then you are asked to provide full details of the person who was driving your vehicle on the above date. If you should choose to decline to provide an answer to the question of who the driver was then we will have no alternative to treat this silence as a reliance by you upon the privilege against self incrimination. Further, if you should decline to provide an answerin breach of the requirements of the Practice Direction, you should then file a defence denying that you were the driver we will seek to recover the wasted costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis against you pursuant to the Court's powers under rule 44.3 of The Civil Procedure Rules.
You should be aware that Combined Parking Solutions will always pursue unpaid charges via the courts and your attention is drawn to the following case in which courts uphold and enforce unpaid parking charges: Please see

*weblink removed, but an interesting weblink*

If this matter shoud have to proceed to court and judgement is obtained against you, this could be registered against your name and address for 6 years and make it difficut for you to obtain credit. An unpaid County Court Order can also result in a Bailiff being instructed to seize goods and/or an Order being granted to deduct the amount owed directly from your salary.
Payment of the £85 due can be made by cheque payable to "Combined Parking Solutions", or by credit card on 0871 288 4606 (there will be a £2.50 surcharge payable for credit card payments, there is no surcharge for payments made by debit card) - Please ensure you quote the vehicle registration number with payment.
It is your responsibility to ensure payment or detailed letter of dispute is recieved at our office within 14-days from the date of this letter to prevent formal recovery action being undertaken and the advised increase in costs, we cannot accept responsibility for payments or correspondence delayed due to the postal service.
Our office is open from 9am-5pm, Monday to Friday for processing of payments.
Your payment can also be made online at::
*weblink removed*
This letter has been sent with a certificate of posting being obtained.
Yours Sincerely,

squiggle (no name!)

Combined Parking Solutions
Company no 06483810 VAT no 970 2195 22
Data Protection/ ICO Registration No Z9882356.


This arrived in an envelope with a second class stamp.
Context: I used to work in Stockton, I have never parked at the xx* Club. A number of other people borrowed my car around that time. Some friends, some work colleagues.
I no longer work there, some people who borrowed it no longer work there.
The alleged offence is nearly six months ago.
I'm no longer in touch with some people who used the car around that time.
I've never had the original parking charge notice they mention.
They have shown me no proof that my car or I were actually there.
They have not given me a time of the offence either.

Am I being phished?

BillTrac

No you aren't being phished....you are being conned.

DO NOT WORRY OR PAY

Whether CPS exist or not doesn't matter. Ignore any letters etc from these people. Do not have ANYcontact with them what so ever. Even if you think about writing to deny the charge. DON'T!. They try to scare people into paying when there is no legal reason to.

Private car parks cannot fine you. This will be an invoice. It may say fine etc but just check the small print. It's a bit like Tescos saying you are limited to 3 hours parking. Doesn't matter. They can send you a "fine" but in reality it's an invoice.

Your car may have been in the mentioned car park. So what!

These people have gone to the DVLA and paid a few pounds to get your details. I assume you are the registered keeper of the vehicle?

If you are concerned go to the Pepipoo website. I know the name is weird but they know all about scams/cons etc to do with parking.

But no matter what do not waste any more of your life worrying about it.

And ps....do not pay, do not pay etc

Spartacus_Mills

Johnna wrote: »

Issued by Combined Parking Solutions,
PO Box 4487
Wolverhampton
WV1 9BP
18th March
reg no x123 xxx

Location: xxxxx
Incident date: xxxx


Dear Mr xx xx

The above vehicle was parked in contravention of the displayed warning signs, which are displayed on this private car park and stated "CLEARLY DISPLAYED CPS PERMITS ONLY"
A parking charge notice was attached to the vehicle and according to our records this amount is still outstanding and no appeal against the issue has been recieved.
The notice clearly states any appeal should be made within 14 days, after this date no appeal will be entered into and the full charge will become immediately payable.
As the authorised agents, we advise you that you are therefore required to pay the sum of £85 within 14-days from the date of this letter to this office, failure to do so will result in legal proceedings being taken against you (as the registered keeper) in the county court.
We are also obliged to advise you that once legal proceedings have commenced, the fee will increase to £135, plus court issue costs and interest.
This communication is now sent to you as a formal letter before claim in accordance with the Practice Direction relating to pre-action protocols contained within the Civil Procedure Rules, a copy is obtainable from your local county court or online by visiting

*weblink removed*

Information recieved from DVLA today shows that on the incident date you were the registered keeper of the vehicle to which this parking charge notice was issued. You are therefore asked to reply to this letter by either paying directly the full amount due or, alternatively, providing a detailed letter of response stating why the parking charge is disputed.
You are formally put on notice that if you do respond to this letter by stating that you were not the driver, then you are asked to provide full details of the person who was driving your vehicle on the above date. If you should choose to decline to provide an answer to the question of who the driver was then we will have no alternative to treat this silence as a reliance by you upon the privilege against self incrimination. Further, if you should decline to provide an answerin breach of the requirements of the Practice Direction, you should then file a defence denying that you were the driver we will seek to recover the wasted costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis against you pursuant to the Court's powers under rule 44.3 of The Civil Procedure Rules.
You should be aware that Combined Parking Solutions will always pursue unpaid charges via the courts and your attention is drawn to the following case in which courts uphold and enforce unpaid parking charges: Please see

*weblink removed, but an interesting weblink*

If this matter shoud have to proceed to court and judgement is obtained against you, this could be registered against your name and address for 6 years and make it difficut for you to obtain credit. An unpaid County Court Order can also result in a Bailiff being instructed to seize goods and/or an Order being granted to deduct the amount owed directly from your salary.
Payment of the £85 due can be made by cheque payable to "Combined Parking Solutions", or by credit card on 0871 288 4606 (there will be a £2.50 surcharge payable for credit card payments, there is no surcharge for payments made by debit card) - Please ensure you quote the vehicle registration number with payment.
It is your responsibility to ensure payment or detailed letter of dispute is recieved at our office within 14-days from the date of this letter to prevent formal recovery action being undertaken and the advised increase in costs, we cannot accept responsibility for payments or correspondence delayed due to the postal service.
Our office is open from 9am-5pm, Monday to Friday for processing of payments.
Your payment can also be made online at::
*weblink removed*
This letter has been sent with a certificate of posting being obtained.
Yours Sincerely,

squiggle (no name!)

Combined Parking Solutions
Company no 06483810 VAT no 970 2195 22
Data Protection/ ICO Registration No Z9882356.


This arrived in an envelope with a second class stamp.
Context: I used to work in Stockton, I have never parked at the Malleable* Club. A number of other people borrowed my car around that time. Some friends, some work colleagues.
I no longer work there, some people who borrowed it no longer work there.
The alleged offence is nearly six months ago.
I'm no longer in touch with some people who used the car around that time.
I've never had the original parking charge notice they mention.
They have shown me no proof that my car or I were actually there.
They have not given me a time of the offence either.

Am I being phished?

Please delete your name from this post. Perky, who runs CPS, is known to trawl the net and use posts on forums against people. It would be wise to remove your name from this and use a pseudonym.

Johnna_2

I'm tempted to take the letter to the Police, but I suspect they'd say go away.

Coblcris

Who are these people ? This is so wrong it would take pages to traverse fully.

"You are therefore asked to reply to this letter by either paying directly the full amount due or, alternatively, providing a detailed letter of response stating why the parking charge is disputed.
You are formally put on notice that if you do respond to this letter by stating that you were not the driver, then you are asked to provide full details of the person who was driving your vehicle on the above date. If you should choose to decline to provide an answer to the question of who the driver was then we will have no alternative to treat this silence as a reliance by you upon the privilege against self incrimination.
etc
etc"

You are therefore asked to reply to this letter

This has been done to 'establish' they are being reasonable under CPR - not a view I agree too but that is its purpose.

by either paying directly the full amount due or, alternatively, providing a detailed letter of response stating why the parking charge is disputed.

This is just palinly rubbish. You may reply in anyway you see fit, if you see fit to reply. They cannot limit your choices. For example I would never dispute but I may may well deny. There are legal reasons for not disputing that go back centuries, never dispute a civil claim but by all means deny it. Or chose other options that I will not reveal here (for reasons that will become apparent so I ask your forbearance)


You are formally
What formality is this ? None.

put on notice that if you do respond to this letter by stating that you were not the driver, then you are asked to provide full details of the person who was driving your vehicle on the above date.

I wish them well with this purported 'notice'. It is a question that you have no requirement in law to answer. This company is making a claim, it up to them to identify the claimant properly. Clearly this company does not know who was driving the vehicle. In trying to be clever they have made it plain upon the face of this letter that they do not know who was driving and have no idea who to claim against. This letter defines itself by its contents as speculative. All Private Parking Company letters define themselves thus.
But by going to these lengths this company may well have gone rather too far.

If they bring a civil claim without properly identifying the claimaint it is an abuse of the court process.

If you should choose to decline to provide an answer to the question of who the driver was then we will have no alternative.

Who on earth cares what their alternatives are as they see them or what choices they make ?

to treat this silence as a reliance by you upon the privilege against self incrimination.

Incriminatuon ? In a civil case not a criminal one ?.
They seem to have been watching far too much american television.

"Further, if you should decline to provide an answer in breach of the requirements of the Practice Direction,"

Completely and utterly wrong. Notice how they have not mentioned which Practice Direction they refer to. They cannot. I suspect this is also a clear breach of Consumer law probably including the criminal elements of the 2008 Regulations.

"we will seek to recover the wasted costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis against you pursuant to the Court's powers under rule 44.3 of The Civil Procedure Rules."

More fallacy which carries from their previous one and extends it further.

"You should be aware that Combined Parking Solutions will always pursue unpaid charges via the courts"

Always ? As they have claimed it this now brings their books into play. Is it really 'always' or is this a false claim on their part ? Do they really want their books examined in fine detail ?

"Misleading piffle about judgments and credit ratings'

These matters well understood here so no need to explain such piffle.

"It is your responsibility to ensure payment or detailed letter of dispute is recieved at our office within 14-days from the date of this letter"

Now we come to the key sentence and the reason for the reams of preceding piffle.
Neither of these is your responsibility at all ! Remember that.in a civil case the responsibility for making the case lies with the claimant, you are not obliged in any way to assist them yet the have stated that you are - by the miracle of their own thought processes but not according to black letter law !

My judgment says this letter has been written someone with no legal training or at least no effective legal training.
But it has been written by someone who has practiced their manipulation skills and who has honed this from earlier, and poorer, attempts.
This company claims some prior success and I have no doubt that many people who are taken in by such approaches will just by taking one of the alternatives offered have demonstrated that as a defendant they do not understand the law and so will probably represent an easy victory. I have very strong reservations that this company wins all its cases however.
Note that the letter is sent with an unreadable squiggle and with no printed name.
The author clearly understands the legal signifiance of a signature accompanying the printed name and , in my view, has completed the letter like this to avoid being held responsible or liable.


In any civil claim case, and in this I also include genuine claims, it is absolutely the wrong thing for the putative defendent to lie about anything at all.
Please note these following points well:
- Never state publicly on an internet forum or in any messages with other forum posters who the actual driver was.
- Never ever lie about the circumstances and facts.
- Never ever enter into a 'dispute' with these companies. Deny yes, dispute no.

I have only lightly touched on some aspects that would be part of a full traversal of the letter from this company. I have no wish togive them any further pointers.

I will respond to the original poster via a Private Message with some suggestions on how to deal with this if they choose to ask. There are alternative ways to deal with this and any of the alternatives will kill this claim.




As a general suggestion anyone who receives a letter from one these companies and finds that the letter is not signed with a clear readable signature and the printed name may wish to consider as a first reposte a letter such as this:-

"Dear (cut and paste of the squiggle),
I am in receipt of a letter dated day/month/year/ from XYZ ltd with the above signature.
In cognisance of possible fraud and of liability issues I do not respond to letters from unidentified individuals not matter what stationary it is sent on.
If my concerns over identity theft and fraudulent misrepresentation of your company are groundless then by all means resubmit your letter but it must be properly signed and authorised before I will give cognisance to it.
You must also provide evidence, which may be given in a statement of truth made by the author and taken on your full commercial liability that the author is an authorised representative of your company acting on behalf of and binding the company.
So that you clearly understand this means that failure to properly sign the letter with the clear printed name of the author along with that same person's signature and or failure to provide testimony that the author represents and binds the company will not be acceptable and any such letter will be disregarded as it will have no legal force.

Yours etc"

Johnna_2

Coblcris,
a PM would be most welcome, especially as I have never parked a car (either owned or driven by me) in the car park that CPS have claimed.

Coblcris

PM communications have taken place.

Readers should expect this thread to now be quiescent until such times as are appropriate..

bargepole

Combined Parking Solutions (CPS) are the company owned by Mike Perkins (Perky), the well known former cafe owner from Wolverhampton, who fancies himself as some kind of legal expert of the PPC industry.

There was a famous case (probably the deleted weblink from the OP's post) where someone admitted on a forum they were the driver, then tried to deny it in court - Perky produced copies of the forum postings, and the Judge took against the defendant, and awarded Perky his claim. He's been crowing about this on various forums, under a myriad of usernames ever since, and has persuaded some other PPCs to initiate claims based on this "win" - most notably Excel, who have gone to court a couple of times recently, and who have lost spectacularly.

He has been challenged, through Pepipoo, to issue a ticket in a pre-arranged location and take the case to court, with the losing party then appealing to the High Court to create a binding precedent - unsurprisingly, the challenge has not been accepted.

trisontana

Regarding Perky, the so called "legal expert". You know what they say "a little learning is a dangerous thing".

It would be interesting see what actual legal training Mr. Perkins has. If he has employed a solicitor or barrister to advise him, I should ask for my money back if I was him. Perhaps it was actually a barister (i.e. someone who works in Starbucks) who is their legal expert.

ripped_off_driver

Perky has no legal qualifications whatever, as can be established by a searh of the legal regulatory websites. Maybe on Planet Perky he is a Professor of Law but on Earth he is just a loser and plonker. Although he does pour a mean cup of latte so maybe he could be a "Barista" and convince himself in his dreams that he is a real lawyer. He has dined out on the set up Combined Parking Solutions v Stephen Thomas case for years, lying through his teeth about it being a landmark decision etc etc. when all it was is a simple case of Thomas unwisely admitting he was the driver in an online forum and denying it in court. And given his girth he has had a fair number of dinners.But let's not be too hard on Perky. He is feeling a bit lonesome I see:http://www.plentyoffish.com/member13884268.htm

Coupon-mad

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

But let's not be too hard on Perky. He is feeling a bit lonesome I see:http://www.plentyoffish.com/member13884268.htm

:TIs that for real?! :rotfl::rotfl: