private parking company

flegman

HI i now this is old news i,ve read all the other thread but i'm getting ear ache from the wife, somebody parked on a car park that they have aggreement with his gym that they can use for free after 5pm-7am, he has a notice(permit) to say he's a member at the gym which is 24hr, he left his permit on the passenger seat bye mistake to return to his car to find a ticket from Elite management (midlands) Ltd for £125 reduced to £75 if paid within 7 days. the car is in the wife name so she is panicking about going court, am i correct this is a scam company which i should ignore all corispondonce she wants to go to police & ask them.

Trebor16

I would suggest that you edit your post to remove details of who was driving at this stage as these sleazebags do read the forums.

If there is any contract it is established between the driver of the car and the PPC/landowner and not with the registered keeper.

As there was a permit for the car the PPC have no legal power to issue fines/penalties in these circumstances and their contractual losses are zero, due to the fact a permit had been issued.

Stand firm and ignore them.

Orford

flegman wrote: »

am i correct this is a scam company which i should ignore all corispondonce

Yes ignore everything

flegman wrote: »

she wants to go to police & ask them.

This is a civil matter and the police will not get involved. Most likely, because they don't know what they're talking about, they will suggest she pays it. Don't.

vax2002

A scam that impersonates authority, they will write lots of silly letters, make lots of silly threats, change characters to fake debt collectors and fake solicitors and make more fake threats then go away.
Or she can pay them, wait for them to come back for more in late payment charges, thn again and end having to ignore them anyway, so it is better to do it now. They can not effect your credit rating and they can only sue for the incidental loss which is zero, anything else is a penalty which can only be charged by local councils or the police.
So best advice, ignore them and treat any silly letters connected as just that silly letters.

give_them_FA

If it's your wife's car but she wasn't driving, then they can have no possible claim against her. Edit your post to remove details, we don't need them when giving advice on private parking companies since the advice is simple- never pay them a penny, ignore everything they send you.

If you want to think about preparing a case for claiming damages for harassment then keep any correspondence they send her as it is unlawful to make unwarranted demands (she will never owe them anything). Tell us if you are thinking of going down this route.

Otherwise, IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE SOME MORE is the simplest and best advice.

flegman

is this company linked with roxburghe & that graham white solicitors

Coupon-mad

Yep, it seems that's the letters they use:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3046210

So what? Just ignore them all.

bradders58

I can cofirm that Elite Management (Midlands) Ltd use Roxburghe and Graham White Solicitors. A PCN was issued last December and I took the advice having viewed comments on this forum and ignored it. Roxburghe have since sent two letters the latter stating if payment is not received within 10 days the matter will be passed to Graham White who will review the case. The first letter is similar to one already already on the sstem but the second one states the follwoing " we are fully aware of anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites and you may well feel this guidance is worth following. We strongly urge you to seek independant legal advice rather than rely on these options and we would respectfully suggest that you refer to the S52 of the County Courts Act" If this letter hasnt been posted before I shall try and post it ( not a tech person) If anyone can explain to me what S52 is I would be grateful. I shall contiue to ignore all correspondance

give_them_FA

It is the purest bullsh*t designed to browbeat you into thinking they know something about Courts when actually they don't. The one and only time Roxburghe have ever been to court was when they were sued and paid out damages for harassment. "Graham White" is NOT really a solicitor, it is different headed paper used by Roxburghe.

S.52 is a procedural protocol entirely unrelated to any issue they are on about.

If you assume that these scammers are lying, you will generally be right.

Keep on ignoring. Once "Graham White" has sent you a couple of letters it will be all over.

Tazapops

I have received a second one I have not contacted these con men and probably never will I have read your comments about these PPC's all letters will be saved for the time being but will be eagerly incinerated at a later date

LincolnshireYokel

bradders58 wrote: »

.................hat you refer to the S52 of the County Courts Act" If this letter hasnt been posted before I shall try and post it ( not a tech person) If anyone can explain to me what S52 is I would be grateful. I shall contiue to ignore all correspondance

52 Powers of court exercisable before commencement of action.
(1)On the application of any person in accordance with [F1rules of court], a county court shall, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, have power to make an order providing for any one or more of the following matters, that is to say—
(a)the inspection, photographing, preservation, custody and detention of property which appears to the court to be property which may become the subject-matter of subsequent proceedings in the court, or as to which any question may arise in any such proceedings; and
(b)the taking of samples of any such property as is mentioned in paragraph (a), and the carrying out of any experiment on or with any such property.
(2)On the application, in accordance with [F1rules of court], of a person who appears to a county court to be likely to be a party to subsequent proceedings in that court F2. . . the county court shall, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, have power to order a person who appears to the court to be likely to be a party to the proceedings and to be likely to have or to have had in his possession, custody or power any documents which are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise out of that claim—
(a)to disclose whether those documents are in his possession, custody or power; and
(b)to produce such of those documents as are in his possession, custody or power to the applicant or, on such conditions as may be specified in the order,—
(i)to the applicant’s legal advisers; or
(ii)to the applicant’s legal advisers and any medical or other professional adviser of the applicant; or
(iii)if the applicant has no legal adviser, to any medical or other professional adviser of the applicant.
[F3(3)This section is subject to any provision made under section 38,]


What they think thatr has to do with anything here is beyond me. its pure bluster and waffle to make you think they know something. Pure BS.