Parking Fines - help and advice please!!

ManxRed

This lot?

http://www.parkingenforcementagency.org/index.htm

Its not even a registered company. There's no mention of who is 'Trading As' Private Parking Enforcement Agency either.

OK, so further to the advice above, you may also be interested to know that as they are not a legal entity, and have not disclosed the name of the individuals 'Trading As...' then they CANNOT issue a court claim against anyone.

Coupon-mad

Mommybell wrote: »

It was a company called Private car parking enforcement agency there address has a warrington post code and it was at a car park in Birmingham. THANK YOU I knew I had to ignore it but just needed reassurance.

Mommybell please let us know if you get any letters from this firm. I assume you haven't responded or given them your name & address at all?

I don't think this lot are members of the BPA AOS scheme so they can't get your registered keeper data from the BPA.

Stephen_Leak

Coupon-mad wrote: »

<snip> I don't think this lot are members of the BPA AOS scheme so they [STRIKE]can't[/STRIKE] shouldn't be able to get your registered keeper data from the [STRIKE]BPA[/STRIKE] DVLA legitimately.

That's more like it.

Coupon-mad

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

That's more like it.

Oooops, Freudian slip there, as the two are practically in bed together over the issue! :rotfl:

retiredhobbit

Back to my earlier thread here. Received a second letter from Roxburghe. Notably slightly different as reported in thread 4127613 (Sorry, not allowed to post links!) quoting Section 52 of the County Courts


So assuming this is following the normal pattern? Are there any concerns with regards to the alternative legislation that has now been quoted?

Also, I see that GW has recently issued a court claim as seen on pepipoo



Should I be concerned about this? As said before, it was an honest error which was reasonably made as I was unaware of there actually being a P&D policy. To fulfil my obligation though I am going to send the car park owner my 2 pennies . Notably, I was re-reading my first letter yesterday which stated that 'we have been advised that they have not yet received payment' in the context of the 'driver should have paid'. To me such poorly drafted English still actually explicitly implies I was, and still only am, respnsible for paying my P&D fee???!!

Coupon-mad

retiredhobbit wrote: »

Back to my earlier thread here. Received a second letter from Roxburghe. Notably slightly different as reported in thread 4127613 (Sorry, not allowed to post links!) quoting Section 52 of the County Courts

So assuming this is following the normal pattern?

Yep, a slightly-tweaked version of the letter, as covered in this thread yesterday:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4127613

retiredhobbit wrote: »

Are there any concerns with regards to the alternative legislation that has now been quoted?

None at all, see that thread from yesterday. They have just used something that includes the words 'County Court' to try to confuse the issue. But the section quoted is irrelevant to an alleged contract or trespass. And they would not win if they tried a claim which was defended properly.

retiredhobbit wrote: »

Also, I see that GW has recently issued a court claim as seen on pepipoo

Should I be concerned about this?

Not at all. They tried one last year as well but bottled out. This year they (any PPCs) have even less chance of winning one, following the VCS rulings in May.

This latest one is doomed to fail because they have aimed it at someone who was not even driving! You couldn't make it up!

Stephen_Leak

We've spotted the change in the letter. Mentioning the County Courts (that’s where you’ll end up, if you don’t pay us) Act is a crude but effective scare tactic.

For the record, Section 52 of The County Courts Act (1984) “relates to impounding or seizure by the court of property subject of an action and to obliging a potential party to proceedings to produce documents.”

Roxburghe are under investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, who are "minded to revoke their licence".

Graham White are under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for threatening people with legal action that they can't actually take.

retiredhobbit

Thanks. Will pay my p&d fee to the Landowner so there are no doubts about my intentions to settle the matter reasonably, whilst also pointing out some facts concerning their PPC.

bazster

retiredhobbit wrote: »

Thanks. Will pay my p&d fee to the Landowner so there are no doubts about my intentions to settle the matter reasonably, whilst also pointing out some facts concerning their PPC.

:T Give 'em hell!

Mommybell

HAHA so I could do them for illegally getting my details - now there is a turn up for the books love it