Private Parking Ticket; Why to Ignore & not pay (Very Long Post)

give_them_FA

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

Their litigation manager left the firm days afterwards.

I heard it was because he didn't make very good tea.

N9eav

Gooner86 wrote: »

Thanks all for taking the time to reply. It feels wrong but i'll ignore it and see what happens.

Cheers.

My son got a ticket by Armtrac in Nov last year. We ignored all the letters and threats. Have not heard from them since....

As long as they do not know who was the driver (and you don't have to tell them) They never know who to take to court... and as far as I understand they don't bother anyway.

saffsmum

This is an excellent post thank you. I have just received my second letter from MET - increasing my 'charge' to £100 and I have to admit to having had a bit of a wobble. Even though I have read all the info over and over, it is very reassuring to be able to visit these forums and have my decision to ignore every letter validated. I am sure I will be back lots over the next few months because there is absolutely no way they are getting a penny out of me without a court order.

ManxRed

They won't be getting a penny out of you then, because they certainly won't be getting any court order!!

HO87

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

According to HO87, there's no evidence of Excel applying for or being granted an NPO against Alphabet, a car rental firm, for details of the user of one of their cars.

The unsuccessful attempt to get one against an individual was by VCS (who are not unrelated to Excel, of course). According to them, they got the notification of the court hearing too late, and didn't attend. They got the decision set aside and a second hearing. They attended this one, and the application was rejected. Their litigation manager left the firm days afterwards.

To clarify what my understanding is coupled with the result of my own research.

Excel, sister company of VCS (they share the same director and currently share the same registered office) are believed to have been successful in applying for an NPO against Alphabet - a hire company. Adopting a neutral stance one can see that an application for an NPO against a company with records capable of being ordered to be divulged (or at least their contents) is far more likely to have succeeded and so the story is believable form that perspective. It is just that no trace can be found of the case although that does not mean that it did not happen.

I would not be in the least surprised if Excel have actually used this procedure. It would, after all, fit the business model which is all about maximising the fear-factor on minimum input. The vast majority of Mr & Mrs Joe Soaps would not understand the essential and significant difference between making an NPO application to get at documents on the one hand or trying to force someone to remember something on the other.

IIRC Excel themselves claim to have been successful in making an application for an NPO against Lex Autolease in Leeds during 2010. There is no connection as far as I am aware between Lex and Alphabet and so how the two cases may have been confused, if indeed they have been, I don't know.

VCS made two applications for an NPO against a private individual (who had received 3 invoices) at Melton Mowbray last year. The application, which was defended, was struck out at the first hearing because VCS failed to show. They ultimately applied for a re-hearing and at that, which they did attend and made their case, the application was denied.

Coincidentally, at the time of the VCS NPO application at Melton Mowbray the company's "litigation manager" was, as best we can understand it, the business partner of the Excel's "litigation manager" at the time of it losing to Martin Cutts at Stockport last year. The two chaps may indeed have occupied the same job but I've yet to be convinced that they were actually on the books. I suspect they are simply hired hands.

HTH

trisontana

On the subject of VCS and NPO's , this from the CAG forum:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?326409-Excel(2-Viewing)-nbsp


Hi.
My first time on here and I am Susan Ibbotson's other half. VCS applied to the court for an NPO after she refused to name the driver of her car. The matter went to an hearing prior to going to the SCC but my wife not being well didn't turn up and she was ordered to name the driver which happened to be me. VCS were awarded their costs of £42.50 which we paid. VCS then took action against me and I basically told them where to shove it but they filed court papers at the last minute hoping to win by default but I had my defence ready and printed so they were sucked in when I filed it on time. On the 16th May 2012 VCS lost their case at S****horpe County Court. VCS v Ronald Ibbotson and were ordered by District Judge McLlaine to refund our £42.50 also. The bottom line was that ONLY THE LANDOWNER can take the matter to court and not people acting as their agents(VCS) and then the landowner has to prove damages(unlikely). Keep your eyes peeled on this case as Judge McLlaine made some very important rulings against this bunch of cowboys to be circulated to other courts plus the BPA were also to be informed about VCS being "naughty boys" as this information (ie Only the landowner) was available to them in their contract with the BPA and Judge McLlaine threatened them with Contempt Of Court for bringing the case to his court in the first place unless they came up with a good explanation as to why they did so by today(18th).
As I said keep your eyes peeled!!


If what the poster says is true then this is yet another setback for the private parking "industry".

ManxRed

Terrific! Keep us updated.

VCS = SRS = BPA anyway, no?

Stephen_Leak

Oh dear. Another gross miscarriage of justice ... according to SR-S.

give_them_FA

That judge is obviously completely mad! (S. R-S)

kala976

give_them_FA wrote: »

Just keep ignoring till either they get tired of it or it goes SB!

What happens when the redom bill comes. :think: