Control Account Letter Before Claim

4consumerrights

BrizzledSam - You may also wish to complain along the lines I recommended in this thread about Control Account:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4836909

bod1467

The other ticket - the one about which the CA demands relate ... you said you received other letters. (So I assume you have ignored everything until you saw a letter with COURT written on it).

What was the date of the "offence"?
What were the dates of these other letters?
Did any of these letters imply there was a windscreen PCN? (This will help us determine whether the other letter were "in time", and thus whether any RK liability even existed).

spacey2012

Has this letter been signed by a solicitor ? they should name themselves as a solicitor.

BrizzleSam

You assume correctly bod1467... All ignored until I had received the letter before claim from CA. I believe the parking incident happened in early to mid July this year. I cannot find the Euro Car Parks PCN letter at the moment and the CA letters don't give the precise date.

The other letters from CA are dated 10th Sept, 23rd Sept and the letter before claim 22nd November...

None of the letters from CA imply there was a windscreen PCN, can't say for the Euro Car Parks letter, although my wife says there definitely wasn't one on the windscreen (otherwise she would have probably paid this one as well!!!) :mad:

BrizzleSam

Letter before claim was from an Oscar Jefferies, who is supposedly a legal executive!

BrizzleSam

Well another successful conclusion. I have just spoken with Sainsbury's in regard to the letter I'd sent and they have agreed to cancel the 2nd parking charge notice with ECP and are even sending us out a £30 gift card to cover the £30 my wife paid for the first one. :T It seems like customer service is not dead after all. I also raised the point that perhaps they should facilitate a change in the ECP signage to reflect a possible new procedure for those with "protected characteristics" under the Equality Act, whereby they can notify Sainsbury's store managers of their "protected characteristic(s)", who might then inform car park wardens and thereby those people might avoid unnecessary charges. The response I got that it was going to be discussed further within Sainsbury's.

Thank you so much Coupon Mad :A and all the other folk who have replied to my post as well. :A

Feels like a little bit of Xmas has come early to our household!!! :beer:

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think you will get the money back if you play your cards right.

You said in another post that your wife was pregnant. As such, she was/is covered by the Equality Act 2010 and it is illegal to treat her unfavourably or cause her 'any detriment' for something related to her condition. Overstaying when shopping because she was slower due to pregnancy (stopping to use the loo or eat or drink or rest for example) is not something that a 'service provider' can legally penalise her for. Not that penalising people is ever legal of course.

Service providers in this case include Sainsburys and their parking agent. Both guilty of indirect sex discrimination due to the 'blanket policy' of a time limit.

'Tis the season of goodwill and I am so glad Sainsburys saw the true nature of these charges against protected members of Society. I had forgotten I had typed the above bit in bold, but glad the prediction came true!

Well done - I will add your thread to the 'Successful complaints about PPCs' sticky thread for posterity.