Civil parking charge notice- lidl athena

MrNotty

Hi - I'm going through my first as well (will we always remember the first time??). Though, in the opinion of the posters here, I made an initial mistake, I am now awaiting the deluge of letters - but have a nice file for them waiting.

pogofish

jules29 wrote: »

Hi, i'm in a similar position, i received a charge notice for parking at Dunelm for 2hr 50 mins today.it happened on the 1st December, similar story pay £45 now or £75 if not paid by 28th! There is a photo of car arriving and leaving the car park, can't see the driver. After reading the posts i'm not sure now if to pay it? I'm in scotland not sure if the law is different here?
The name of the company is Total Parking Solutions Ltd
Would be gratefull for any advice

How on earth are Dunelm and TPS similar to Lidl and Athena in England?

A new thread would really be in order here!

Other than that, the scam is just the same and there have been no law changes in Scotland, so POPLA and Keeper Liability do not Apply.

So your only serious option is to ignore these scammers.

jules29_2

Thanks for all your replies
I won't be paying then!!

Coupon-mad

Good! Like all the other posters on this board, you have a fake PCN.

The registered keeper can just ignore it and ignore the other letters that will arrive. The letters are easy to ignore and laugh at, when they arrive at the address of someone who knows it's all hogwash and not a real parking ticket at all.

The whole scam of fake PCNs relies firstly on people's ignorance of the fact that a random private company can't fine anyone, and secondly on their natural fear of parking tickets and the escalating costs/bailiff scenario (which in fact doesn't apply as it's a junk mail scam, not a real debt). So PPCs copy the look of a real parking ticket and - hey presto! - the cash rolls in from victims who know no better.

There is no fine, no CCJ, no bailiff, no debt, no effect on credit rating, no Court (TPS have never tried Court), no repercussions at all.

Tick off the threatening letters here.

Watchdog clip with expert Solicitor's opinion here.

Barrister's opinion - read the answer at the bottom, it's very clear! - here.

So I recommend he/the registered keeper just plays snap with the threatograms from debt collectors - choose to ignore and laugh at the scammer and their attempt to extort money. I have ignored two myself, as have most regulars on here and ALL the newbies!

It's like deleting obvious phishing emails from your 'Bank'; it's a very similar con based on impersonation of authority.


DID I SAY DO NOT PAY?!!!!!!!!!!

jules29_2

i thought the new law that came out in October meant that the registered keeper can now be held liable?

Half_way

jules29 wrote: »

i thought the new law that came out in October meant that the registered keeper can now be held liable?

Yes, you are right, but you have failed to mention what they the registerd Keeper (RK) could be liable for?

The RK can be held liable for a parking charge that is un enforcable, and in virtulay all cases un just. In other words you can now be held liable for something that doesnt realy exist.

Stroma

jules29 wrote: »

i thought the new law that came out in October meant that the registered keeper can now be held liable?

All it means is that the parking companies providing they are in the bpa aos can chase the RK of the vehicle, if the RK ignores them the only way they could be liable is if the parking company took them to the small claims and won. In 2011 that happened 24 times out of 1.8m fake tickets.

Coupon-mad

jules29 wrote: »

i thought the new law that came out in October meant that the registered keeper can now be held liable?

Before 1st October only a driver could be held 'liable' and we always told them they could ignore fake PCNs, for various reasons.

After 1st October, both registered keeper and driver have potential 'liability' so we still tell them they can ignore fake PCNs, for the same reasons as ever.

Despite the way PPCs and the BPA paint it, fake private PCNs have not suddenly become enforceable!

The_Slithy_Tove

jules29 wrote: »

i thought the new law that came out in October meant that the registered keeper can now be held liable?

There is a lot of misinformation around concerning the Protection of Freedoms Act. This is largely pedalled by the private parking companies in an attempt to add some kind of legitimacy to their charges, not helped by sloppy and lazy journalism which regurgitates what the parking companies say without checking if it's true or not.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduces the concept of Keeper Liability for private parking charges if the registered keeper fails to divulge who the driver was. That is all.

• It does not make parking charges enforceable (or any more enforceable than they were before, which, on the whole is not enforceable at all)

• It does not require the registered keeper to name the driver on request - there is no obligation. If the keeper fails to name the driver, the "liability" (such as it is) reverts to the keeper (see previous point). If the driver and keeper are the same person, then there is no difference anyway.

• It does not set out any kind of statutory framework for parking charges, they are still based on contract law or trespass, and in that respect nothing has changed

• It does not define the wording that must be used to make parking charge notices "legal", "enforceable" or "valid". The Act sets out wording and points that must be included in order for the parking company to be able to apply keeper liability, but using all the correct words does not make the notice any more legally enforceable than it was before (see point 1)

George_Stitt

Maybe the reason Lidl customers get so many 'PCN's' is because Lidl keep them in long queues waiting to check out! Up to 10 tills and often only a couple in operation...

On another note does anyone know how many pieces of junk mail Athena send out before they see the light & realise they are getting Jack Sh*t from the persecuted?

I read somewhere that Athena never go to court. Is this verifiable?

I'm forever telling people to ignore but extra info is always useful...:beer: