Thank you so much. You've saved us plenty ££

sma11person

Just wanted to post and thank the lovely people here who spend their own time generously posting to try and help prevent other folks from actually falling for these scams. We received our first one a couple of years ago. I googled the company, found them mentioned on here, watched the Watchdog clip, showed it to hubby, and that was that. We've received several different letters from different private parking outfits since then, and ignored all of them.

Just wanted to reassure other people who may be experiencing this for the first time that yes, you probably will receive a few letters, over the space of a few months. All will be demanding your money (some with worse grammar and/or punctuation than others ). All may be safely ignored.

I've helped other people during the last couple of years by explaining that those parking charge notices are unenforceable, so they may be safely ignored. Also had to explain about them being just junk mail like any other junk mail. Tried to help friends today, but they weren't having any of it, and quoted "This new law". I hadn't heard of any law changing the offence (if any) from an arbitrary civil one to an enforceable criminal one, so checked in here. I was right, they were wrong. I'll print off the info about the new law, and leave them to read it for themselves. Thanks ever so much for posting that, too. :beer:

Stroma

Well done, always good to see posts and threads like this, it shows to people that we are not just advising without success stories. Thanks for coming back here with this. There are more watchdog videos now though so even more evidence that this is scam

fivetide

Good work. Too few report successes. Anything to spread the word. I hope your friends appreciate your efforts too!

MrNotty

Thank you - this is what those of us facing a PCN for the first time, or the first time knowing it us unenforceable, need to hear.

sma11person

No problem, folks. We actually found one of these on our windscreen when we stopped for dinner on our way out to holiday last year. It was quite a good one, as scams go. Official looking yellow/black chevron warning sticky pouch stuck to the windscreen. "You were seen leaving the car park". Yes. And? "Please pay £60" (or whatever ridiculous amount it was). Spouse was a bit stressed, so I explained I'd seen the same company listed on the pages here, and it wasn't anything to fret about.

Besides, no pay-and-display machines anywhere, so just another arbitrary, unenforceable, "Cough up or we'll send you more letters asking for money" demand. I shoved it in my bag, forgot about it until I unpacked and then found it again a while ago. I think we may have received a follow-up, but that was ignored too.

I did already warn our friends that they should ignore these scams, but like many people, they're too impressionable, and refuse to listen to good sense. I will, at some point, explain that the change to the wording n the law just means that the company can ask the legal keeper to cough up, but can't require them to pay (a very significant difference). I doubt they'll take any notice, so may have to add that if they *must* give their money away, could they at least donate it to charity instead, so that it might go to someone who actually needs it. They actually took great offence at my suggesting that when I spoke with them previously, and continued to insist "The law has changed. We have to pay". Ignorance (in every sense of the word) can be a terrible affliction.

The_Slithy_Tove

sma11person wrote: »

I did already warn our friends that they should ignore these scams, but like many people, they're too impressionable, and refuse to listen to good sense. I will, at some point, explain that the change to the wording n the law just means that the company can ask the legal keeper to cough up, but can't require them to pay (a very significant difference). I doubt they'll take any notice, so may have to add that if they *must* give their money away, could they at least donate it to charity instead, so that it might go to someone who actually needs it. They actually took great offence at my suggesting that when I spoke with them previously, and continued to insist "The law has changed. We have to pay". Ignorance (in every sense of the word) can be a terrible affliction.

Maybe you ought to encourage those sceptics to actually read the relevant legislation. It's here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Alternatively, this is the summary I tend to post when people ask - you may already have come across it.

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)

The only thing the Protection of Freedoms Act does is remove from the registered keeper the defence of "I was not the driver." That was always a weak argument. There are far stronger arguments which make such parking charges invalid, all of which still stand.

I agree with you in that if people really want to throw their money away, there are far better causes than the low-life, money-grabbing, unethical, shameless parasites that are the PPCs.

sma11person

I'd already considered showing them the relevant legislation, but these are people whose opinions are not to be trifled with. Especially not by introducing awkward concepts like facts. When I next speak with them, I'll explain that I checked the legislation, and all it just says that the RK can be asked to name the driver, which is absolutely not the same as saying that the RK is required to name the driver, and more importantly does not change the fact that the PCN is unenforceable in the first place. I doubt they'll take any notice, but at least I'll have done my best to help. As per the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

Coupon-mad

sma11person wrote: »

I'd already considered showing them the relevant legislation, but these are people whose opinions are not to be trifled with. Especially not by introducing awkward concepts like facts. When I next speak with them, I'll explain that I checked the legislation, and all it just says that the RK can be asked to name the driver, which is absolutely not the same as saying that the RK is required to name the driver, and more importantly does not change the fact that the PCN is unenforceable in the first place. I doubt they'll take any notice, but at least I'll have done my best to help. As per the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

Got their email addy? Send them a link to this thread.

Dear friends of sma11person, PLEASE read this thread and the information given in it. And here's what you should have done, rather than just believe what you read in the paper! This new poster asked us about the new law and has learned so much that they are now reporting the parking company to the DVLA and other authorities!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4322423

IF YOU PAY A PRIVATE PCN YOU ARE MUGS WITH MORE MONEY THAN SENSE!

THE NEW LAW HAS NOT SUDDENLY MADE FAKE PCNS ENFORCEABLE!

READ UP ON IT (AND NOT IN THE DAILY MAIL OR THE SCUM).

sma11person

Unfortunately, Coupon-Mad, they don't have e-mail. They don't own a computer, and don't even see the point in knowing how to use one. They do, however, have rather more money than sense. Spouse doesn't think it's worth trying to explain any further: "We already told them that these things are spam, and to be ignored. If they're too stupid to listen, leave them alone. You are not the JackAss Whisperer."

edward123

sma11person wrote: »

They don't own a computer, and don't even see the point in knowing how to use one.

And its a shame they do own a brain but don't see the point in using it!

4_Pete's_Sake

I got one of these unsolicited invoices from Apcoa last year and noted their address on the back of the letter, namely Lavender Park Road, West Byfleet, Surrey. I ignored the first one, which invited me to make to pay early at half the price.

A couple of months later, I received another letter with the Lavender Park Road address on the back. I did not open it but wrote on it, "Moved Away, Return to Sender". I then got a third letter about 10 days later and did exactly the same.

That was the last that I ever heard from them.