UK Parking Patrol Office, Manchester

AlexisV

darrenmcr wrote: »

hi please can you tell me, after ignoring these so called 'official notices' what will happen if i just continue ignoring them?

Nothing.

im worried they will charge me silly fees for bailiffs etc

Bailiffs have nothing to do with any of this.

if i ignore them or cant they request anything from me?

No.

im not sure i can be bothered to go through the courts to prevent payment?

They will not take you to court.

thanks for your advice - assuming your advice is legally correct?
darren

Look at the countless of other private parking threads to confirm.

darrenmcr

djdave wrote: »

I've now had a letter from this delightful company, which can be seen here:


I know I shouldn't reply but I thought it would be fun, so now they've wasted money getting my details from DVLA I've written to them asking them a) to confirm who was driving, (b) confirm their authority to act on behalf of the landowner, (c) to confirm whether or not the warden checked for a blue badge, (d) the landowner's policy for conforming to the Disability Discrimination Act, (e) to provide a copy of any contract between the driver and the landowner along with evidence it was knowingly and lawfully agreed, (f) to justify their £60/£90 charges under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, and (g) to justify the tone of their ticket and letter under the Administration of Justice Act.

Either they'll tie themselves up in knots trying to answer, or (more likely) they'll ignore it and send me the next automatic threat. Up to them, really.

djdave - i too have had the same letter requesting £90 - i will also email to ask them for the info you have (below) have you had anything back as yet?

((a) to confirm who was driving, (b) confirm their authority to act on behalf of the landowner, (c) to confirm whether or not the warden checked for a blue badge, (d) the landowner's policy for conforming to the Disability Discrimination Act, (e) to provide a copy of any contract between the driver and the landowner along with evidence it was knowingly and lawfully agreed, (f) to justify their £60/£90 charges under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, and (g) to justify the tone of their ticket and letter under the Administration of Justice Act.)

trisontana

Could I add one point? Please don't call the PPC employee a "warden". To give them that name confers on them a degree of respectability they do not deserve.

AlexisV

High-vis jacket monkey is the correct terminology.

esmerobbo

darrenmcr wrote: »

((a) to confirm who was driving, (b) confirm their authority to act on behalf of the landowner, (c) to confirm whether or not the warden checked for a blue badge, (d) the landowner's policy for conforming to the Disability Discrimination Act, (e) to provide a copy of any contract between the driver and the landowner along with evidence it was knowingly and lawfully agreed, (f) to justify their £60/£90 charges under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, and (g) to justify the tone of their ticket and letter under the Administration of Justice Act.)

Why bother they only read cheques. Ignoring their stupid demands costs them and probably winds them up even more.

If you put them straight about you knowing their scam has been sussed they will probably stop sending the stupidograms.

Let them waste the time, paper, and postage. Take you pleasure in knowing they have wasted their time and you haven't yours.;)

djdave

trisontana wrote: »

Could I add one point? Please don't call the PPC employee a "warden". To give them that name confers on them a degree of respectability they do not deserve.

I know, but I needed a one-word way of describing the man, and I couldn't think of anything else appropriate. Certainly nothing I could print here...

esmerobbo

"Warden" does take up less time then writing, issuer of incorrectly stated, ill-founded, unenforceable, laughable, invoices, but it does indeed give them a title above their station.;)

djdave

esmerobbo wrote: »

Why bother they only read cheques. Ignoring their stupid demands costs them and probably winds them up even more.

If you put them straight about you knowing their scam has been sussed they will probably stop sending the stupidograms.

Let them waste the time, paper, and postage. Take you pleasure in knowing they have wasted their time and you haven't yours.;)

IN my case part of the reason for writing to them is that I believe they may acted unlawfully, and in another thread someone tells of receiving a letter with "DEBTOR" on the envelope which could be potentially illegal. So I fully intend to report their behaviour but wish to give them a chance to explain themselves first. If their reply doesn't satisfy me, I will have no hesitation to report them to everybody from Trading Standards to the police.

spike7451

AlexisV wrote: »

High-vis jacket monkey is the correct terminology.

OI!! you dissing us hi-viz jacket wearers...:p

esmerobbo

djdave wrote: »

IN my case part of the reason for writing to them is that I believe they may acted unlawfully, and in another thread someone tells of receiving a letter with "DEBTOR" on the envelope which could be potentially illegal. So I fully intend to report their behaviour but wish to give them a chance to explain themselves first. If their reply doesn't satisfy me, I will have no hesitation to report them to everybody from Trading Standards to the police.

I agree that complaining should be done. I have done so myself with a ticket I received as the RK but not the driver. I wrote asking for similar information as you intend to do. I never heard from them again. I then complained to their local trading standards, DVLA, the BPA, the ICO and the land owners, who in this case was Welcome break.

All apart from the local T S said they were acting within guidelines? The T S said they were aware of the company and were working with them to encourage better compliance. Welcome break did not respond at all!