Car Parking Partnership letter - OK to ignore?

cherry6

Im aware that private car parking companies don't normally have a leg to stand on, however most of the info I can see on this when I google relates to pay and display car parks, not the situation my OH has. Would appreciate if someone can confirm this is OK to ignore?

OH lives in a courtyard that is hard to access when snow and ice is on the ground, so he parked the closest that he could in an adjoining courtyard. This courtyard is for those residents parking only. He got a notice from Car Parking Partnership on the car and now a letter 'Notice to Keeper'. It states:

At that time the vehicle was seen parked in CPP managed parking area:address, and the CPN was issued for the following breach of the contractual terms and conditions 'Parked in a residents parking space without clearly displaying a valid residents permit'. The contractual terms and conditions for use of the parking area are clearly signposted on the land in question.

Then follows the usual stuff about being required to do one of the following within 28 days: Pay if you were the driver, If not driver then provide name of driver, Challenge the issue.
After 28 days the registered keeper becomes liable for the charge and they have the right to take recovery action.
They want £100.

I told OH to ignore the notice on the car, but wasnt aware it was a residents area, so can anyone confirm this is to be filed in the bin Thanks x

peter_the_piper

Never file in the bin, always keep for a rainy day. Also please remove identifying details from your post so ppc can't ID you on the net.

The_Slithy_Tove

cherry6 wrote: »

This courtyard is for those residents parking only.

...

CPN was issued for the following breach of the contractual terms and conditions 'Parked in a residents parking space without clearly displaying a valid residents permit'.

The usual nonsense. Your OH was never invited to park, as it's residents only. Therefore there was never a contract to breach. This is trespass, pure and simple. Only the landowner can pursue a trespass case, and that won't happen, since the "damages" would be zero rather than £100.

The trouble is, the PPC won't understand such arguments, partly becuase they are never sure themselves, but largely as it suits them to keep the waters muddied.

Coupon-mad

If in England/Wales then (as long as it's not a hire or company/lease car) then it's his choice to IGNORE or APPEAL, as explained here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/60469389#Comment_60469389

If the appeal option is chosen then that means NOT just stopping the process when the PPC reject, but definitely also appealing to POPLA as well and getting the wording right when it comes to that stage of challenge. POPLA appeals can be won but not normally on soft appeal points like 'it was snowing (nowt wrong with that for the PPC initial appeal though as that bit does't really matter too much).

Best to come back for advice if he does the appeal thing. Or just ignore the whole scam if it's not a hire/lease car and laugh at the letters shown in the many other info thread links leading from that link above.

HTH

cherry6

Thanks to all for your help

Coupon-mad

Just posting to show you the new 'legal challenge' long response template, as suggested by Parking Cowboys:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/appeal-letter/

Use some or all of it to tie the PPC up in knots, demanding evidence and answers but not giving away any details about the incident at all.

atilla

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Just posting to show you the new 'legal challenge' long response template, as suggested by Parking Cowboys:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/appeal-letter/

Use some or all of it to tie the PPC up in knots, demanding evidence and answers but not giving away any details about the incident at all.

LOL
I think it will tie them in alright.