Excel parking- advice on their reply please

AltheHibby

Michelle,

The cheapest and easiest way to get them off your back is to simply ignore them. That's what the rest of us do.

They get away with it because not everyone checks here for advice.

give_them_FA

Wisdom there, Michelle, you have paid them for using their car park, end of. (Or should have been)


Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Invoice reference (insert ticket number)

I refer to our previous correspondence. Since I am able to prove that I paid the charge requested to use the car park, I have no indebtedness to you whatever and will not make any payment to you.

I therefore require you to cease and desist immediately from making any further requests or demands for payments, which are not due to you. As you will be aware Civil Law does not permit the imposition of any penalty, fine, or similar charge upon any alleged breach of any term or condition, only the recovery of any actual loss. Which in this matter will be nil.

Please take notice that any further unwarranted demands, whether or not they are accompanied by any threat of any action if not met, and whether sent by yourselves or any agent(s) acting upon your instruction, will be treated as being unlawful harassment, contrary to Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. And further take notice that if you ignore my request and continue with such a course of action, I will institute proceedings against yourselves and the owners of the car park, to recover damages under Section 3 of the stated Act.

No further warning will be given.

Yours faithfully,


That will either get rid of them, or open the door for you to recover money from the scamming so-and-so's. But as Al says, they will go away if you ignore them, up to you!

michelle040688

Thanks, I will let you know how it goes. :-D It did bring a smile to my face that letter and would love to be able to see there face reading it.
Thanks again

Coupon-mad

taffy056 wrote: »

It does need changing, and we have asked for it to be updated but it never is, it's causing conflicting messages to users of the website. Wonder if we can ask Martin Lewis directly to consider some changes ?

I think with the onset of the Freedoms Bill in the Autumn the advice is going to have to be re-drafted as it mentions the 'I was not driving' response which will no longer be as relevant...perhaps. To a Small Claims judge it 'should' still be relevant of course to show there's no valid contract.

I like the 'give them FA' approach of claiming compensation for harassment (and as you know I have an interest in seeing someone claim for disability discrimination/harassment as well).

So perhaps we should start thinking about suggesting some wording for the next MSE article update.

There will also be the Kangaroo Court of the so-called 'appeals procedure' the BPA is trumpeting. I believe that we can use this system to help people - and at the same time to overwhelm it with 'appeals! They are only expecting 1% to use it!!:rotfl:

IMHO after the Freedoms Act comes in and the 'appeals procedure' starts, the strongest posters, non-worriers, should ALL be encouraged to state their valid reasons why the notice is invalid/unlawful (not actually calling it an 'appeal' of course, don't want to give PPCs that much recognition).

Everyone who is up to it should jump through the hoops of the Kangaroo Court, reporting back here on what happens, so we and pepipoo can start picking holes in the procedure, which will then help future posters.

Then if they 'win', great. Follow it with a complaint to the BPA and DVLA every time, inundate them with complaints over unwarranted 'charges' where the 'appeals panel' have found against the PPC - ergo the PPC had no good reason to obtain rk's details!

If they 'lose' , great as well as the motorists still won't pay! They will not be responsible for debt collector additions - the 'charge' will surely still be at face 'value' as the motorist doesn't pay for the Kangaroo Court, the PPCs do! The motorist can then immediately respond, disagree with the findings and say 'bring it on' re Small Claims Court and that any debt collector letters WILL be harassment, etc.

And they can then also show a Small Claim judge - IF it comes to it - that they had lawful reason not to pay and did tell the PPC that as well, acted reasonably throughout and aren't responsible for debt collector costs. Many of our posters here also have other very valid reasons (e.g. bad signage, camera scams, being authorised to park anyway) which a judge 'should' agree make most fake PCNs a scam.

I think Perky and co should have been more careful what they wished for!

Nick1001_2

Thanks Vax, Give them FA, Mucky Butt and Taffy. You all agree I messed up paying anything but you should know I did this before reading the forum; I read MSE advice, interpreted it, and thought the template letter with the part payment would stand everychance of making it go away. Only on receiving their response did I join the forum to get further advice as I worried that MSE may be out of date (Aug 2009 updated).
I will write to the lease car company and ask them to forward any correspondence they receive to me- confirming they will not charge me again. I intend to ignore all further correspondence from Excel. I am concerned that they will take this to court given I have opened myself up by making a part payment, if they do this I would be very grateful for further advice when the time comes.
May I ask all four of you, and anyone else, in my circumstances now would any of you hand in the towel and pay the £35 balance? I suspect I know the answer.
I will not write to them again as I had intended to do this morning on Give them FAs advice about harassing me. WOuld you agree?
Cheers Nick

muckybutt

Nick1001 wrote: »

Thanks Vax, Give them FA, Mucky Butt and Taffy.
May I ask all four of you, and anyone else, in my circumstances now would any of you hand in the towel and pay the £35 balance? I suspect I know the answer.
I will not write to them again as I had intended to do this morning on Give them FAs advice about harassing me. WOuld you agree?
Cheers Nick

NO !to the first question
Re writing back to them I wouldnt bother, they aren't dealing with you direct so imo unless you want to sue them for harassment then I wouldnt bother.

Nick1001_2

muckybutt wrote: »

NO !to the first question
Is this a 'no' definitely?!!!! Thanks!:beer:

Coupon-mad

Nick1001 wrote: »

Thanks Vax, Give them FA, Mucky Butt and Taffy. You all agree I messed up paying anything but you should know I did this before reading the forum; I read MSE advice, interpreted it, and thought the template letter with the part payment would stand everychance of making it go away. Only on receiving their response did I join the forum to get further advice as I worried that MSE may be out of date (Aug 2009 updated).
I will write to the lease car company and ask them to forward any correspondence they receive to me- confirming they will not charge me again. I intend to ignore all further correspondence from Excel. I am concerned that they will take this to court given I have opened myself up by making a part payment, if they do this I would be very grateful for further advice when the time comes.
May I ask all four of you, and anyone else, in my circumstances now would any of you hand in the towel and pay the £35 balance? I suspect I know the answer.
I will not write to them again as I had intended to do this morning on Give them FAs advice about harassing me. WOuld you agree?
Cheers Nick

In your circumstances I would NOT pay the £35 balance.

I used to be a Supervisor in a Bank for many years and I would stop the cheque; lots of people stop cheques. It is true that to stop a cheque can allow a company to sue over it but this has never been done by a PPC that we have seen. Excel tried and failed in a pepipoo case, as they didn't send the right letters out in time (it's an old law with certain stages that have to be followed). And in your case it's not even an amount 'owed' by you as you weren't driving, and there was never an invoice for £25 so it's not a 'claim for a Bill' that I can see a PPC successfully winning in Court over. And it would cost them more than £25 to try.

I would send the harassment letter, maybe wait and see first if you have been on time to stop the cheque. If you haven't, include in the harassment letter that you already feel you have clearly been intimidated without lawful authority and that the £25 is just the start of what you will claim back if they continue to write to you.

I would send a letter/email to the Lease co and enclose printouts of (or links to) the BVRLA advice and template letters for lease companies. The BVRLA is the trade body for lease companies and they know PPC fake PCNs are a scam. Not all lease companies do though.

Post #4 on here gives you the BVRLA linky:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=66692

That's my answer.

vax2002

Same here NO,
they may have a case, but I would make them do it.
If they want blood, make them split the stone top get it out

give_them_FA

I concur with my learned friend Coupon-Mad.