parking charge notice to owner

Coupon-mad

ourhouse wrote: »

Hello i have today recieved a parking charge notice with a photo of my vehicle, I lent my car to my son and it was parked where they say it was he had bought a ticket but he thinks he must have overstayed his time, he was left a ticket on windscreen and the photo shows entering and leaving car park, I have read a lot of people saying ignore these letters but as he was definetely parked there I am assuming he should pay, he is happy to pay I think just so that I don't get any more letters, just wanted to know whether he should or shouldn't thanks
:cool:

REALLY?! ASSUMING HE SHOULD PAY? ARE YOU QUITE MAD? :rotfl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA

Sorry but you have found your way to this forum but for some reason you think you/he should pay a scammer some money just because they have dressed up an invoice with a picture, so it looks like a parking ticket?!

It is NOT a parking ticket. It is not a fine. Watch the clip; show your son.

Parking Eye are being investigated by at least two Trading Standards areas and have been reported to the DVLA and the BPA and outed in the press, as using an unreliable CCTV system. The fake 'PCN' flyer your son found on his windscreen means NOTHING.

If he pays or contacts them at all he is a mug. Don't let him be a victim of this con. Show him the top thread on this forum as well so he can see the rubbish letter-chain of idle threats which he (the registered keeper) will receive. He needs to be ready for the letters so he can just play 'snap' against each picture in that thread. Apart from that, forget the whole scam.

robredz

He/you have no reason to pay, pay this and miraculously the payment wass too late so an extra £xxx? is owed pay in 14 day or it will double.

It's not like council tax where an idiot council will go to magistrates and get a liability order for arrears of 1p and turn it into a debt of £300 with bailiffs, nor an official PCN that can end up with bailiffs.

It is an UNENFORCEABLE INVOICE that relies on a dodgy interpretation of contract law. As the actual loss is pennies and the remedy damages PE, would be laughed out of court.