Yet another parking "charge" thread

Coupon-mad

There is a UKPS, I have seen them mentioned before a couple of times...but the big shame if it's them, is that they were not members of the BPA AOS scheme. So they could never have got the registered keeper's data and the fake PCN would have been the only thing she'd ever have heard about it.

Should have ignored it as per the advice on this parking forum. And none of us on this forum would have criticised her parking as we know where the real blame is for these fake PCNs. The sharks who issue them!

If it was UKCPS or UKPC then they are members of the AOS but she should still have ignored them. This isn't a fine and will not be enforced in any Court. UKPC never try court, ever, and UKCPS are a joke who occasionally try and usually lose unles there's an inept defence (and we are only takling about a handful of cases ever tried at Court).

In the whole of 'PPC World' last year of 1.8 MILLION fake PCNs issued, only forty-nine went as far as a Small Claims Court and over half of them were lost by the PPCs. Of those where the PPC won, that included undefendent default cases where the motorist didn't turn up.

So she has more chance of winning the lottery than this being pursued.

My 18 year old niece has ignored EIGHT fake PCNs and laughs at them every time she gets a new one. I have ignored two.

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 (not applicable without Court of course, this is an invoice, not a real parking ticket).

But 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, 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.

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?!!!!!!!!!!

atilla

@ coupon-mad.
Company I was referring to is.
Court proceedings London Ltd

Coupon-mad

Oh sorry! So does the OP mean UKCPS and 'Court Proceedings Ltd' which are easy to Google and find details about, as we all know:

LMGTFY search result. And that's MSE specific only, among the thousands of other discussion results from pepipoo, CAG and other sites.

cyclonebri1

atilla wrote: »

@ coupon-mad.
Company I was referring to is.
Court proceedings London Ltd

you are correct, it is CPLL

Court Proceedings London Ltd

Buzby

Surely we have not reached the stage that anyone placing their car on a private parking area has completely and unequivocally agreed to all terms and conditions the landowner (or agent) may have imposed - sight unseen?

There has to be knowing consent, not an assumption. So can someone enlighten me as to why this is apparently (now) an irrelevance?

cyclonebri1

Stroma wrote: »

With respects you are implying that we are jumping on the bandwagon and saying ignore without research. I am only replying to what you have written. Honesty has nothing to do with anything, I never advise people to lie but there is no need for anything beyond ignore. The only time that is not advised is if you are not the RK of the vehicle, and a lease/hire company is for example.

And I don't understand the reference of whether you can afford the invoices, that again is not relevant if the invoice is unfair, which all them are in the context of penalising motorists. All these companies just see people as a cash cow to try and exploit.

????????????????????????????????????????????????
Sorry don't get that at all,

you cannot ignore a genuine claim to a fee that can be verified, tell me please if I'm wrong.

cyclonebri1

Buzby wrote: »

Surely we have not reached the stage that anyone placing their car on a private parking area has completely and unequivocally agreed to all terms and conditions the landowner (or agent) may have imposed - sight unseen?

There has to be knowing consent, not an assumption. So can someone enlighten me as to why this is apparently (now) an irrelevance?

It';s not irrelevant, it's totally relevant, the aggressors have to show deprivation, not occurred in my case,

Coupon-mad

Not sure what you are on about now. Just ignore it and enjoy Christmas.

Stroma

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

????????????????????????????????????????????????
Sorry don't get that at all,

you cannot ignore a genuine claim to a fee that can be verified, tell me please if I'm wrong.

What claim ? The only way a debt becomes a real debt in this context is through a small claim, that is won by the claimant. As this is just a speculative invoice it's meaningless without a claim.

atilla

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

you are correct, it is CPLL

Court Proceedings London Ltd

Who, based on the searches i've done at companies house, don't exist.
So, no need to feel inclined to send 'em your hard earned. Rather, turn the tables on them. I'm sure you can think of several offences you can chase them on.