NHS Staff parking fine

Jed_Exodus

I've sent it, I added on the end that if the debt collector contacts me again it would be deemed harassment and appropriate measures would be taken, and as per Jeremy Hunts guidelines the trust would be equally responsible for this.

I'll update when I get further news.

Jed_Exodus

Well its been a week now and no reply. The 14 days given to contact the debt collector is up on Wednesday, no doubt I'll hear from them.

A couple of questions for when they do get in touch, after I threatened to take action against them for harassment upon any further contact, do I just contact my local police for this.

Also as I threatened to charge them for my wasted time, how would I go about this, should I send an invoice?

bazster

Jed_Exodus wrote: »

Well its been a week now and no reply. The 14 days given to contact the debt collector is up on Wednesday, no doubt I'll hear from them.

A couple of questions for when they do get in touch, after I threatened to take action against them for harassment upon any further contact, do I just contact my local police for this.

Also as I threatened to charge them for my wasted time, how would I go about this, should I send an invoice?

You have no chance of getting the police interested. "That would be a civil matter sir". You can sue for damages arising from harassment, but the threshold is high and you are nowhere near it.

Nor will you get anywhere charging them for your time. You have no contractual basis to do so.

Have you complained to the BPA that one of their members is denying you the right to a PoPLA appeal?

Jed_Exodus

The contractual basis of me charging them is that in the appeal email it says the following.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for mycosts. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.

They have responded and therefore agree to pay for my wasted time, of course I wouldn't expect them to pay up.

I will complain the the BPA but to be honest I've wasted enough time with this, could somebody advise me whether they're likely to take this further, especially in light of their flouting guidelines, and if so if they stand any chance of success. If not I'll just start ignoring them.

bazster

Someone who knows his way around the court system recently tried suing a parking company after trying to inveigle them into a contract in this way. The judge said it was nonsense and warned him not to try it again.

We've no idea what the trust will do next, they don't exactly crop up frequently here. Aintree Hospital on Merseyside has a nasty habit of suing people through Trethowan's Solicitors, and we recently heard of another trust that has started doing the same thing using the same solicitors. Will your trust be next? We've no idea.

The complaint to the BPA is your best bet. For all their general uselessness, they do usually act over complaints that people are being denied their right to a PoPLA appeal.

Jed_Exodus

Weird that as its a similar way that they try to inviegle their victims into contracts!

bazster

Jed_Exodus wrote: »

Weird that as its a similar way that they try to inviegle their victims into contracts!

I didn't say it was right or fair!

Jed_Exodus

I wasn't implying that you were sticking up for them, I was merely pointing out the double standard.

Anyway BPA complaint lodged last night and response at 8am this morning asking for copies of all correspondence.

Cygnus_Alpha

Jed_Exodus wrote: »

I wasn't implying that you were sticking up for them, I was merely pointing out the double standard.

Anyway BPA complaint lodged last night and response at 8am this morning asking for copies of all correspondence.

I am going to try this inveigle thing with a PPC. While I thank bazster for pointing out what a judge has said, I am not deterred by what one judge says. That said, I think it is best to present it as a contract variation using similar terms as the original , in which case any criticism levied against it can also be applied to the original contract.

Jed_Exodus

Cygnus_Alpha wrote: »

I am going to try this inveigle thing with a PPC. While I thank bazster for pointing out what a judge has said, I am not deterred by what one judge says. That said, I think it is best to present it as a contract variation using similar terms as the original , in which case any criticism levied against it can also be applied to the original contract.

Be interesting to see how you get on.