Care Parking - fine for pulling over to close boot properly.

TrickyWicky

Barneysmom wrote: »

It's about time these pccs were done for obtaining money by deception/with menaces.

How can they be deceiving you? If the driver entered into a contract then they entered it.

If the PPC then sends letters to the RK who is stupid enough to cough up cash then thats the RKs problem. Likewise the PPC is under no obligation to pursue legal action if they threaten it.

I'm not defending the PPCs, I'm just saying it as it currently stands. They threaten legal action but never follow through.

At the end of the day the trash that PPCs send in the post is all a load of b*ll*cks

Sirdan

TrickyWicky wrote: »

How can they be deceiving you? If the driver entered into a contract then they entered it.

If the PPC then sends letters to the RK who is stupid enough to cough up cash then thats the RKs problem. Likewise the PPC is under no obligation to pursue legal action if they threaten it.

I'm not defending the PPCs, I'm just saying it as it currently stands. They threaten legal action but never follow through.

At the end of the day the trash that PPCs send in the post is all a load of b*ll*cks

Yes and as well as being bo**cks it is worded in a way that deliberately seeks to intimidate and deceive..have a look at some of the bull that is in PPC letters ..full of untruths ..and they and their debt collectors must know fine well this is the case.
Deception o yes I think you'll find it surely is !

Best example that springs to mind is trying to convince the keeper that CPR31.16 and 31.17 will apply to any proceedings they issue and therefore the keeper must disclose information to them ..shame they forget to mention that their claims go to the Small Claims track where CPR 31 does not apply ....how's that for an attempt to mislead i.e. deception ???????:mad:

KittyPryde

HappyMJ wrote: »

How did they get everyone to reverse park in the photo? Would forward parking incur a PCN? http://www.careparking.co.uk/car-park-management.htm

:rotfl:

LOL

KittyPryde

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You asked how to tell the difference between a real PCN and a fake one?

- Simplest thing is the title, a real PCN from a Council has 'Penalty Charge Notice' whereas a private bogus PCN has 'Parking Charge Notice'

- And a real Council one has a Council logo at the top

- And a real Council one has reference to a Traffic Management Act or Local Authorities Act at the top (not 'the Administration of Justice Act'!)

- And a real Council one will clearly say 'appeals/payment to be sent to the Council', whereas a fake one will give an address for the scam company.

Yours is a fake one and you must just ignore it and the letters that follow.

Yes sounds fake then, nothing about the council on it, has a PO Box address to appeal and says PARKING (not penalty) CHARGE NOTICE.

Thanks everyone, we shall ignore.

Can they actually get our phone number from somewhere?

AlexisV

Maybe. But it depends if they can be bothered. Most PPCs just send out junkmail letters and don't trouble their braincell with any more work.

Inflatable_Armadillo

KittyPryde wrote: »

Yes sounds fake then, nothing about the council on it, has a PO Box address to appeal and says PARKING (not penalty) CHARGE NOTICE.

Thanks everyone, we shall ignore.

Can they actually get our phone number from somewhere?

Yes, they use various means and can usually obtain or more often buy your number from some where.

Don't worry about that now, some PPC's don't bother taking things this far, some do, but is changes nothing. If they do call you, you just deny the debt and tell them to refer the debt back to the originator and that any further contact will be treated as harassment. They usually stop after that and move on.

TrickyWicky

Sirdan wrote: »

Yes and as well as being bo**cks it is worded in a way that deliberately seeks to intimidate and deceive..have a look at some of the bull that is in PPC letters ..full of untruths ..and they and their debt collectors must know fine well this is the case.
Deception o yes I think you'll find it surely is !

Best example that springs to mind is trying to convince the keeper that CPR31.16 and 31.17 will apply to any proceedings they issue and therefore the keeper must disclose information to them ..shame they forget to mention that their claims go to the Small Claims track where CPR 31 does not apply ....how's that for an attempt to mislead i.e. deception ???????:mad:

I agree with everything you're saying but at the end of the day of the RK stumps up the cash then they're just as much to blame for not doing their research.

HO87

If as C-M has set out that there is no mention of the Traffic Management Act 2004, there is no obvious connection with a council, payment is due to a private company and no council-based appeals mechanism then this NOT a real Penalty Charge Notice. If the allegation is that you unlawfully entered a bus lane then this smacks of deception and it would be useful to know exactly what the wording is.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

I agree with everything you're saying but at the end of the day of the RK stumps up the cash then they're just as much to blame for not doing their research.

Applying the same canted logic then a householder who inadvertantly leaves a window open through which a burglar enters and empties his house is equally to blame as the burglar. I hope that you are not seriously suggesting that is the case?

TrickyWicky

HO87 wrote: »

Applying the same canted logic then a householder who inadvertantly leaves a window open through which a burglar enters and empties his house is equally to blame as the burglar. I hope that you are not seriously suggesting that is the case?

Totally different scenarios. You don't invite a burglar in to make use of your home first.. at least not knowingly.

PPCs tend to invite people in to park. Thats the first major difference so your comparison doesn't really work.

I do see what you're trying to say though but at the end of the day, RK liability is a BAD thing. How many more times must I say this?

lovinituk

KittyPryde wrote: »

This is from google images. This is where you exit perry bar one stop. He pulled in directly to the right of where the silver car is. Shut the boot properly then left round the round about (not down the bus lane). I will delete the pic soon just wanting to give all the info to check we will be ok. It is defo not council.

I wonder if the black and silver cars were clued up enough to ignore their 'fines' too!!