ticket help UPDATE PCN Cancelled Yay

duffs54

Here is my appeal, please can you look for me to make sure it is correct, didn't know what to say about the costs bit as 4consumerrights said to do
Thanks lots

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. *******

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.
b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.
f). This is not a 'parking ticket' - it is an unsolicited invoice with as much merit as the publicly-derided £100 taken unlawfully from customers by a dingy Blackpool Hotel.
g). The NTK was received over the 56 days allowed invoking the RK liability under POFA
[FONT=&quot]Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. The landowner will be made fully aware of this matter and your response, which I will forward to their CEO when I complain in writing and via social media, as appropriate.

Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. Your ATA may offer sound-bites about driving up standards or fight for motorists' rights but in reality they are not a regulator; they merely exist to represent the interests of paying members, in order to gain access to DVLA data. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below, since you have no case.

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 my costs. 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.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.


[/FONT]

Redx

CR was talking about popla, this is the initial appeal to the parking company

but you could mention that POFA 2012 cannot apply so as RK of the vehicle that will remain the main point of any appeal process, although other points will be included

duffs54

I have expanded point g, is this ok now do I send or email? at this point do I add pics as it has the ability on the website?


ta again



Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ********

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.
b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.
f). This is not a 'parking ticket' - it is an unsolicited invoice with as much merit as the publicly-derided £100 taken unlawfully from customers by a dingy Blackpool Hotel.
g). The NTK was received over the 56 days allowed invoking the Registered Keeper liability under POFA
[FONT=&quot]Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. The landowner will be made fully aware of this matter and your response, which I will forward to their CEO when I complain in writing and via social media, as appropriate.

[/FONT]

Redx

you follow whatever their paperwork tells you, so if email is ok , or if it can be done on their site then do so, otherwise send snail mail with free certificate of posting at the PO

you have their paperwork, so read and follow it

only supply evidence or copies of evidence if it proves YOUR case

otherwise , make them prove theirs , as they are chasing you, so think of it as a "no comment" interview, prove the case or drop it

duffs54

Thank you, snail mail it is then

cheers

duffs54

So I sent off my letter to them explaining that they had surpassed 56 days etc and have a PO receipt, not heard back from them, then today I have received a Debt collection letter asking me to now pay £155.00

What do I do now please, I have not done a popla as I was expecting them to dismiss the tickets on the over 56 days limit

help please

duffs54

Hello please can anyone tell me the next step, they have bypassed the appeal stage with popla and gone straight to debt collectors, looks like they didn't get my letter posted over xmas.

cheers

Umkomaas

Send a complaint to the the BPA and the DVLA (see post #6 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky).

Give a chronological list of what's happened since the parking incident and ask them to investigate.

Don't worry about powerless debt collectors (read about them in post #4 of the above sticky), they have no powers.

duffs54

thank you lotsUmkomaas

Marktheshark

I would reply every time, Registered Keeper is not liable under POFA due to no NTK served in 56 days.
Let them pay for the letter at the other end.