Parking Collection Services. Advice please

NeoGeo123

Hello

Can someone please give me some advice in relation to a private parking fine that I received around a week ago, basically the fine arrived in the post, although I am the registered keeper of the vehicle,4 members of my family have access to it, the letter states that a ticket was initially placed on the car in August outside a supermarket which was unpaid, ( up until the fine arriving my self and my family were unaware that any ticket had even been applied to the windscreen)...because of this the fine has risen to £115

I initially sent a email to parking collection services explaining that although I am the registered keeper I won't be paying the fine as I wasn't driving at the time in question, furthermore I still wouldn't be informing them of the drivers details as the large fine is totally out of proportion in regards to the the parking charge. I tried to speak to them by phone and they were totally unhelpful and rude, they basically hung up on me.

Has anyone ever had the pleasure of dealing with these people.. i received a reply from them today which I will post below..could someone please have a look at it and point me in the right direction

You're help would be much appreciated




Thank you for your email Mr

Within the correspondence it states that you were not the driver at the time of the contravention.

As such, because we are members of the British Parking Association (BPA), I am required to invite you to declare that you either were the driver of the vehicle at the time the charge was issued or to disclose the identity of the driver at that time.

I feel obligated to mention that, under the Pre-Action Protocol of the Civil Procedural Rules, court action must only be viewed as a last resort. I am making all reasonable attempts to avoid this outcome.

However, it is worth noting that, if this matter does proceed to court, it may be requested that a Norwich Pharmacal Order [Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974]] be issued by the Court so that the correct driver details would have to be provided.

Many forums/sites advise people to ignore parking charges; with some advising people to send standard letters to deny liability for the charge notice.

It is not advisable to believe what you read on the forums as we do take people to court.

This was proven in Oldham County Court in November 2008 where an operator won a case where the keeper stated that they were not the driver and could not remember who was driving. The judge decided that on the balance of probability he was the driver and ruled against him.

Regarding the amount charged, if you refer to the British Parking Association’s code of practice, you will discover that the sum in question is within what this body deems reasonable.

This sum has been calculated after consultation with various bodies (e.g. The Office of Fair Trading).

It is a requirement that the figure itself must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Our client’s charges conform to this. If a case were to go to court the ultimate decision on what charges are allowable rests with the individual County Court Judge who is handling the particular case. In the vast majority of cases heard the Judges have ruled that consequential losses may include ‘All business activities which may come as a result of non-compliance to the parking terms offered’.

This may include:
· The potential losses to the retailer due to the parking contravention (if appropriate). An example would be the loss of a customer to a store if a parking bay wasn’t available to use due to the parking contravention.
· The cost of the staff issuing the charge (e.g. salary, equipment, stationary, insurance, etc).
· The Parking Management Companies costs (e.g. rent, rates, management fees, telephone, heating, staff, post, stationary, DVLA fees etc).

Furthermore, if the charge is not settled with the parking company and the case is consequently passed to a debt recovery company for collection, costs incurred can be added on the same basis.

I would like to point out that in the all of the cases our company has been involved with the judge has allowed both our charges and our client’s charges.

I would also like to remind you that when the driver parked the vehicle on the site in question, he/she contractually agreed to abide by the terms and conditions attached to that site. As stated, these terms and conditions are adequately displayed on signage at the site. If he/she did not wish to abide by these terms and conditions, nor accept the charges incurred should they be breached, they were under no obligation to park on the property in question.

Within the correspondence harassment has also been referred to. As such, I feel obliged to point out that under S1(3)(c) of The Harassment Act 1997, a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not be deemed so if the person who pursued it shows that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
I feel that under the particular circumstances our course of action has been entirely reasonable. Our company has legitimately pursued recompense for a breach of the terms and conditions attached to our client’s site.
Furthermore, upon your own denial, I am now reasonably asking for the details of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question.

In order to resolve this matter as soon as possible, I invite you to either pay the outstanding charge via the methods outlined below or to disclose the identity of the driver.

Please note that while any further correspondence will of course be noted and filed, I cannot guarantee a response will be provided unless one of the above is forthcoming or I receive additional evidence that would affect the outcome of the matter.

As a gesture of goodwill, I will place the account of £115.00 on hold for 14 days from the date of this correspondence to allow time for payment to be made or for our company to be provided with the driver details.

However, if I am not furnished with one of the above within the stipulated timeframe, the matter will be passed on to a debt recovery agency for collection; with further costs incurred as a result.

Regards



Nigel Goulden
Collections Manager
Parking Collection Services
P.O. Box 411
Dukinfield
SK14 9DD

SodG24

Nigel is an idiot and a liar and talking complete C R @ P !!!!!!!

Ignore them, don't tell them who was driving and they will go away.

NeoGeo123

Thanks for the fast reply,

The only thing that concerns me is that when I spoke to the jokers on the phone they kept referring to the new laws and that I will be made to disclose who is driving or I will be liable

I know the best option is to ignore, it's just I am very tempted to send Nigel a email telling him exactly what I think of him and his cowboy company

NeoGeo123

Ps which part of his email refers to him lying

taffy056

What an utter pile of brown stuff out of bulls rear end , the Norwich Pharmacal Order is not used in the small claims track, it costs hundreds or even thousands to issue one, and most importantly the costs are not passed onto you, so to say such a thing is utter tripe. They are trying to scare you with legal claptrap that means nothing. The advice is to ignore them, they will soon give up crawl under the stone they crawled out of.

taffy056

NeoGeo123 wrote: »

Thanks for the fast reply,

The only thing that concerns me is that when I spoke to the jokers on the phone they kept referring to the new laws and that I will be made to disclose who is driving or I will be liable

I know the best option is to ignore, it's just I am very tempted to send Nigel a email telling him exactly what I think of him and his cowboy company

They are lying, the new laws came into effect 01/10/12 and are not retrospective at all , and even if this was post that date the fake tickets are still fake, the law has not made them enforceable , so ignore them

Paperbird

Shows how desperate they are when the only case they can find where a PPC got anywhere with that is from 2008.
The last time a PPC tried to claim their staff wages etc as a loss the judge said no chance. It's worth a read if someone can post a link to it.

SodG24

NeoGeo123 wrote: »

Ps which part of his email refers to him lying

Virtually every sentence he's typed !

This is a contract dispute. Under contract law all they can try and get from the DRIVER ( not the RK ) is their losses. So in a free car park those losses would be ...... you've guessed it ...... nothing. In a car park that charges £1 per hour and you overstay by say 30 minutes it would be 50p.

The contract is between the driver and the LANDOWNER not the PPC !

So a PPC that doesn't own the car park nor has a lease ( 99.9% of the time they don't ) can't take you to court for any losses as they didn't incur any ( the landowner may have done but refer to my first paragraph).

Even with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 all the PPC can do is ASK the RK who was driving. That's it - up to you if you tell them but I wouldn't as the PPC can do nothing about it. Without the drivers details there has been no contract formed ( and even that's doubtful as the contracts are considered unfair ) so no action can be taken.

My pet cat knows more about the law than Nigel Goulden ( official LIAR ).

Half_way

this one: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231

a few quotes:

Judge to the Parkiing company representitive

If there is another case in the S!!!!horpe County Court, Grimsby County Court or Hull County Court live by four pm on
Friday, you will be coming to see me and I suggest you bring a toothbrush. Am I clear?

And more form the Judge:

"The manager director, Mr Simon Richard Smith, shall by four pm on 29 June file at court an explanation as to the manifest discrepancies pleaded and unproven and on receipt of same the claimant's authorised officers shall be required to answer to contempt of court ."

I cannot help but wonder if now you are going to be reading about yourself on the internet.

anyone know what Mr Simon Richard Smith said? and if im not mistaken arent one of his companys Excell parking currently banned from accessing the DVLA database due to gross misconduct?

fb1969

NeoGeo123 wrote: »

Within the correspondence harassment has also been referred to. As such, I feel obliged to point out that under S1(3)(c) of The Harassment Act 1997, a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not be deemed so if the person who pursued it shows that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
I feel that under the particular circumstances our course of action has been entirely reasonable. Our company has legitimately pursued recompense for a breach of the terms and conditions attached to our client’s site.
Furthermore, upon your own denial, I am now reasonably asking for the details of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question.

I can't really work out what the idiot is saying here other than it isn't harassment as he says it isn't! When it comes to a company harassing people a quick glance at this link says far more than he does http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/debt_collection/ I know it is from 2009, but that is more recent than the one PCS refer to!

NeoGeo123

Thank you everyone for all the quick replies...I was actually worried there for a second...is it not unusual for a private parking company to email you, has anyone had any past dealings with parking collection services....like I mentioned earlier I really am tempted to write to them and tell them exactly what I think of them, or would this open me up to be prosecuted