Private parking ticket

fatherofthebride

I'm totally new to this forum (or any forum for that matter!), but here goes!
I received a letter demending payment from a private paarking company for parking in a B&Q warehouse carpark. I wasn't the driver, so I responded with a standard template letter from this web site stating this.

I have now received a second letter from the PPC saying that I am responsible for the charge because I won't tell them who was driving! They also quoted some court case in Oldham (which I can't see is relevant, but I assume this was meant to scare me!).

Any advice on what to do next?
a) respond with a 2nd letter restating that I wasn't the driver; or
b) Just ignore it and all subsequent letters

Obviously I won't be telling them who was the driver

Sir_Roger_deLodger

Ignore it. You are right, they are quoting the Thomas case to scare you.
Many people believe the Thomas case was a set up.

trisontana

To counteract the Thomas case, it's just been announced over on CAG that our old friends OPC have lost yet another case today.

Sir_Roger_deLodger

trisontana wrote: »

To counteract the Thomas case, it's just been announced over on CAG that our old friends OPC have lost yet another case today.

Another one bites the dust. I still don't understand what OPC are trying to achieve, you'd think the words "flogging a dead horse" would have penetrated even their thick skulls by now.

trisontana

As last week, they lost because they could not prove who the driver was.

boliston

fatherofthebride wrote: »

I'm totally new to this forum (or any forum for that matter!), but here goes!
I received a letter demending payment from a private paarking company for parking in a B&Q warehouse carpark. I wasn't the driver, so I responded with a standard template letter from this web site stating this.

I have now received a second letter from the PPC saying that I am responsible for the charge because I won't tell them who was driving!......

This is just silly - they are trying to confuse you by comparing it with a police-issued speeding ticket! They are trying to blur the boundary between CIVIL and CRIMINAL law!

fatherofthebride

Thank you. I totally agree! Even their letter design seems to try to copy a police design!
(no one should pay; I won't, even if I could!) (Couldn't, wouldn't shouldn't!)

Hadeon

trisontana wrote: »

To counteract the Thomas case, it's just been announced over on CAG that our old friends OPC have lost yet another case today.

This is a link to the relevant thread & posts over on CAG.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219588-OPC-Ingress-Park/page15

With all due acknowledgement to Al27, I reproduce below his post at #292 of that thread.


For impartiality, the judge at Wolverhampton only found against OPC because our defendant wasn't the driver. Arguments such as contractual penalties, unfair consumer regulations and contractual offers were dismissed.

The judge stated that the signage constituted a valid contractual offer and the amount was an agreed charge in debt.

Fake court papers were described as legitimate copies of papers to be prepared and that it was a valid tactic by debt collectors.

Basically all the established defences and points of law were demolished in a tough hearing.

Be aware that OPC will probably now try to push cases towards Wolverhampton. These need to be transferred to a nearby court to avoid this problematic judge.

　
Deeply worrying comments from this judge & thus not quite the overwhelming 'victory' this appears to be at first glance.

vax2002

I think a good tactic would be to contact Northampton county court and play stupid, to say you have received court papers from the court papers but no court date to attend, the papers are genuine and are the papers they issue.
I am quite sure they would be very interested in fake papers been sent around, after all it is reducing the validity of them if people can just print their own.
When they get to the bottom of it and tell you they have not been issued by the court I would ask, are they covered by any copyright such as crown copyright ? and if so why are they not prosecuting people making illegal copies of them...