University parking tickets worry

nobbysn*ts

Maybe Bazster got a 'proper' degree. Textile design maybe?
I've got a t shirt from the Unseen University if that helps.

Kanye_West

Update:

I sent off the complaint to BPA and they replied after 4 days and then about 2-3 weeks later i got 4 letters from the university saying that they had cancelled every pcn!

Success. Thanks all

Coupon-mad

Kanye_West wrote: »

Update:

I sent off the complaint to BPA and they replied after 4 days and then about 2-3 weeks later i got 4 letters from the university saying that they had cancelled every pcn!

Success. Thanks all

Well done - you may want to post on these threads to help these two:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5082271

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5059554

Very similar issues with the same University.

bazster

Fabulous! And you didn't have to participate in an identity parade?

Hot_Bring

As we seem to have a moron stopping proper threads being displayed ..... bounce.

Kanye_West

So the university have started putting "warning PCNs" on cars now saying something along the lines of "you wont be charged this time but dont do this again"....lol?

Secondly, I received this letter from the university regarding a PCN I got last term 17/06/14 (just over 19 weeks ago)

Dont know what to make of this http://imgur.com/3qrNPTa

What should I do with this?

Coupon-mad

If that's the first letter I think I would reply (name and postal addy on the right of course, and the date):



Dear Sirs,

Re: your 'Pre Legal Notification' letter

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxxx and was alarmed and angered to receive a letter headed up 'Pre Legal Notification' mentioning a 'parking charge' from June 2014. This missive is signed 'The University of York' and is headed up with the same name, yet a Northampton address and telephone number is provided.

Unless this is a scam, I can only think you or your Northampton-based agents have sent me the wrong template and that your Parking Facilities Manager urgently needs to take advice from your Legal Faculty. The University could potentially find yourselves in legal trouble, by allowing a parking agent to issue - on your behalf - misleading letters to UK consumers who now have new legal rights of redress to remedy such a prohibited practice. Your misleading threat was dated 29th October 2014 and it breaches new Regulations enacted on 1st October 2014, which provide me with a right to redress (damages) from misleading actions, such as this 'pre legal Notification' letter purporting to emanate from the University of York.

Your failings and misleading actions:
- You have failed to meet the requirements of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 as you have failed to issue a 'Notice to Keeper' within the required timescale, so it is wholly misleading to write to a registered keeper 19 weeks later and say 'you must remit payment in full to us'. Nowhere have you informed me that the liability rests with the driver alone.

- only the driver can be held liable where you fail to invoke POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and there have been no admissions as to who was driving the car in June. You cannot demand monies from the keeper under any circumstances now - you are too late. Yet you have misstated the position and added alarmist warnings of dire consequences of a keeper not paying, and untruthfully implied that debt collectors can litigate, which they cannot.

The Law:
- it was the will of Parliament when the POFA Bill was first read prior to enactment, not to allow within Schedule 4, the BPA's favoured option of legally requiring a keeper to name a driver. So I will not be naming the driver. That leaves you to pursue me as keeper, which you cannot because your template letter was too late and not a 'Notice to Keeper' as set out under the statute.

- Parliament has also enacted parts of the EU Consumer Rights Directive which aims to create a uniform legal umbrella of Regulations in member states, for all consumer contracts. The Consumer Contracts (Cancellation, Information and Additional Charges) Regulations came into force on 13th June 2014:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/schedule/3/made

- The parking event mentioned is dated 17th June 2014 and yet the University of York have failed to issue the driver with the required information for a 'contract' in durable medium, prior to this parking event. Therefore, no contract exists.

- Ad hoc parking contracts are formed in the most part, from a driver being expected to infer terms by reading a sign (implied consent). However, the above Regulations, since 13th June, require that consumer contracts are formed only by 'express consent'. Hidden terms and unexpected 'contracts' foisted upon drivers without the required information and express consent being exchanged in advance, do not meet these regulations. Parking 'contracts' are not exempt.

- Further, under the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 I now have a right to redress:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/870/made

PART 4A - CONSUMERS’ RIGHTS TO REDRESS
(4) The second condition is that—
(a)the trader engages in a prohibited practice
(6) The third condition is that the prohibited practice is a significant factor in the consumer’s decision to enter into the contract or make the payment.
27B. (1) In this Part “prohibited practice” means a commercial practice that—
(a)is a misleading action under regulation 5, or
(b)is aggressive under regulation 7.
(2) Regulations 5 and 7 apply for the purposes of this Part as if for the definition of “transactional decision” in regulation 2(1) there were substituted—
““transactional decision” means any decision taken by a consumer to enter into a contract with a trader for the sale or supply of a product by the trader, or for the sale of goods to the trader, or to make a payment to a trader for the supply of a product.”.
27J. (1) Subject as follows, a consumer has the right to damages if the consumer—
(a)has incurred financial loss which the consumer would not have incurred if the prohibited practice in question had not taken place, or
(b)has suffered alarm, distress or physical inconvenience or discomfort which the consumer would not have suffered if the prohibited practice in question had not taken place.
(2) The right to damages is the right to be paid damages by the trader for the loss or the alarm, distress or physical inconvenience or discomfort in question.

The way forward
I have certainly suffered alarm, distress and discomfort in receiving this alarmist letter demanding money with menaces by warning me (misleadingly) about CCJs and bailiffs. I am astonished that an educational establishment of the University of York's stature and reputation, as part of the esteemed Russell Group, is issuing such utter, antiquated codswallop to registered keepers. I would be most interested to read how the University defends their use of this unlawful and menacing letter, issued in every case to the wrong party since you/your agents never follow the POFA 2012 and, as such, can only pursue drivers.

In order to avoid me claiming my right to redress I require that you:

(a) confirm that the charge has been cancelled
(b) confirm that any other such charges have been cancelled
(c) confirm that you will not be troubling me again
(d) confirm that you have ceased using this particular letter immediately, or anything like it which misleads keepers into making a transactional decision to pay when it is not their liability to do so
(e) confirm that your Legal Dept is urgently reviewing your practices
(f) confirm that you will only obtain the data of registered keepers from the DVLA in future where you are either:
- planning to send a compliant 'Notice to Keeper' before day 56, under Schedule 4 of the POFA or
- planning to send a non-misleading letter to the keeper merely inviting them to name the driver or pass the letter to the driver (the driver being the only party you can pursue in the absence of a NTK).

Drop hands offer
I hereby issue a drop hands offer, whereby I will waive my expenses and right to damages - but only if you confirm in writing ALL of the above. I am aware that you/your parking agents have already been warned by the BPA about your erroneous 'parking charge' letters but since 1st October 2014, such matters are far more serious for you now, if you choose to persist with this aggressive and misleading practice. I strongly suggest that the author/sender of your letter, obtains urgent Legal Advice before responding to me to explain these misleading actions.

I consider it reasonable to expect a full reply within 21 days. I have copied in the recipients named below and I have obtained proof of postage.

yours faithfully,



(keeper's name)

cc the Dean (?) of the University of York*
cc Steve Clark, BPA
cc Hugh Evans, DVLA



* or maybe copy in this guy:
Jon Meacock Director of Estates and Campus Services
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/dfm/contact/index.html

Umkomaas

Another CM howitzer!

I expect the cloisters' ablutions will be fully occupied next week. They'll need to well hitch up those gowns. Does each trap have a fan?

trisontana

But don't forget that the letter does not actually come from the university, but from the goons at CPP. Note the address at the top of the letter. Since when has the University of York been located in Northampton? Is that misleading address yet another breach of the law?

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

But don't forget that the letter does not actually come from the university, but from the goons at CPP. Note the adress at the top of the letter. Since when as the University of York been located in Northampton? Is that misleading address yet another breach of the law?

Well spotted trisontana.