New Generation Parking - Debt Collectors now!

funkycoldribena

rappo85 wrote: »

Had the exact same letter for £210 this morning. Ignored the first one from NGP so ignoring this one. To further reassure the OP, I did a lot of reading after the first letter on here and fight back forums and in order to be successful in court they would have to prove that by parking in their car park they suffered damages equivalent to the amount charged, whereas excessive amounts are defined as penalties, which cannot be enforced by a private company. The original invoice was £75, so clearly falls into the penalty category, and would be seen through by the judge. The car park I parked in was not clearly signed and is free and was nigh on empty, so in my view their losses amount to sweet FA, so they can go do one!

Please correct me if I have interpreted the information incorrectly! Waiting for my solicitors letters now, after explaining to my Mum exactly why they couldn't extract any money from me!

Someone gets it first time.:T:T:T

lois32

I am in the same situation, last letter - final warning £150. In the same time I have change the adress in DVLA, but Parking company got my old adress (as dvla did not change in their system yet when PPC asked them, I think), so they do not bother me at home
My friend dgt 7 letters so far.

Kite2010

lois32 wrote: »

I am in the same situation, last letter - final warning £150. In the same time I have change the adress in DVLA, but Parking company got my old adress (as dvla did not change in their system yet when PPC asked them, I think), so they do not bother me at home
My friend dgt 7 letters so far.

Be careful they might try and chance a go at court if the scam letters are getting returned "no longer here" written on them, knowing they could stand a chance of getting a no-show win by default.

However chances of that happening are rare, so carry on ignoring

RENEGADE_2

shytorque wrote: »

So, ignoring the letters will no doubt generate more threatening letters, but at what point do they give up?

As soon as they like!

If they wish to jump up and down in hysteria until 2048 that's up to them. No court? No obligation to pay. Get same match.

lois32

Kite2010 wrote: »

Be careful they might try and chance a go at court if the scam letters are getting returned "no longer here" written on them, knowing they could stand a chance of getting a no-show win by default.

However chances of that happening are rare, so carry on ignoring

I go to the old place once a month and get those letters.

rappo85

Graham White letters arrived! Was able to reassure my family as I was able to predict the "solicitors", the fee and the threat. Odd that!

Coupon-mad

rappo85 wrote: »

Graham White letters arrived! Was able to reassure my family as I was able to predict the "solicitors", the fee and the threat. Odd that!

Well done - bet your family were impressed - how did you guess?! :rotfl:

shytorque_2

Surely, it would be easy enough to advise them that the matter is in dispute.

They will find it difficult to take any legal action knowing a defence to any court action would be robustly contended.

Coupon-mad

shytorque wrote: »

Surely, it would be easy enough to advise them that the matter is in dispute.

They will find it difficult to take any legal action knowing a defence to any court action would be robustly contended.

We do advise people to say 'the alleged debt is denied, this is harassment so clear off' if they are TELEPHONED.

But there's absolutely no point at all in responding to this letter-chain, it churns out regardless. Any letter at all in response is always treated as an unsuccessul 'appeal' and gets an extra letter from the PPC at least before the scam reverts back to the well-known debt collector scamograms.

And there's no danger of Court with these chancers so it's just not worth taking them seriously.

HO87

shytorque wrote: »

Surely, it would be easy enough to advise them that the matter is in dispute.

They will find it difficult to take any legal action knowing a defence to any court action would be robustly contended.

Understand your logic but if you read a little further around the subject you'll see that:

a) Graham White, Solicitors is simply a front for a debt collectors - Roxburghe's who in turn are currently under investigation by the office of Fair Trading having been told that the OFT are "minded to revoke" their Consumer Credit Act debt collectors licence.

b) Being reasonable simply isn't part of the standard private parking company (PPC) business model. They just want your money. As a consequence any form of communication - written or verbal - merely encourages them to contact you more because you have let them know they have a "live" fish hooked.

c) The demonstrable intention of most PPC's is not to take anyone to court but they don't want that to become too commonly known or believed. Their business model is to frighten/threaten people into paying what is at the end of the day an entirely arbitrary levy intended solely for private enrichment.

d) This is not a standard business that "sells" or "rents" parking space to the public in return for a payment. In general their spaces are free of charge for a set period - usually quite short - and for overstaying that limit they choose to deem that as a breach of contract in order that they can pursue you for a wholly disproportionate sum. Bear in mind that these company's don't own or even rent the car parks they "farm" they merely obtain licences from landowners to "manage" them - free of charge - except they get to keep the charges they levy.

e) One might argue, quite sensibly, that they have a right to pursue people for such breaches of contract and no one here will argue with that inevitable truth. However, they are only entitled to pursue people for their real losses - or actually those of the landowners they work for. So, in a free car park their losses are what? Precisely zip, zero, zilch.

f) If you would like an independent assessment of the standard PPC business model then look no further than the judgment of Judge King in a VAT Tribunal case earlier this year - Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 125 (TC) [VCS Ltd are a well-known PPC based in Sheffield]. She said, at para. 4:

These items of income [the sale of warning signs and permits] are not the major income for VCS. Most of the income of VCS comes from motorists who pay VCS money following a parking ticket being applied to their vehicle.

(My emphasis)

VCS lost the case, by the way, and were ordered to pay VAT on the charges they levy.

g) Finally, based on their own performance, PPC's appear interested in only one thing - lining their own coffers. Once this is understood the reasoning behind their actions becomes much clearer.