'Parking Enforcement' PCN appeal rejected (but cheque cashed.) What next?

BeeTrootfull

Hello,

I'm a new poster but sometime lurker. I would be very grateful for some advice about a ticket I was issued at the end of November. I had paid for 2 hours of parking (at a cost of £1/hour) and overstayed by 15-20 minutes -- I was ticketed at minute 11. (This seems suspiciously fast and I wondered if they have cameras which I do not think are disclosed.)

The charge was £100 with a reduction for fast payment (within 14 days) to £60. I was advised by a worker at the cafe I had been to that 'they' often reduced the parking charge on appeal. Hoping to pre-empt this, I sent the letter below (based on the example given by Martin) with a cheque enclosed for £20. Reading through the threads, I think perhaps I shouldn't have given any ground up but I was hoping it would solve the problem.

The letter is here:
>>
You issued me with a parking ticket on 28/11/2014 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I will not be meeting your demand for payment for the following reason.

The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The amount you have charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner.

According to the Unfair Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. In my case, the £60 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner of less than 50 pence, calculated based on the hourly rate of £1 and given that I arrived back at my car around 5 minutes after the ticket was issued (i.e. 15 -20 minutes overstay). I had been attending to my child in the nearby play area and was delayed in leaving. Furthermore, there were spare parking places in the car park so no one was prevented from parking.

I enclose a goodwill payment of £20 which is equivalent to a standard council parking fine, although please note that I do not accept liability for the demand for payment you have levied given the above. I hope that this will see a speedy resolution to the matter.

If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.
<<

I was hopeful the cheque would be cashed and that would be the end of it. But, the cheque was cashed (it has gone out of my bank account) and what I also received was a letter stating my appeal was rejected and I must pay £100.

This continues to seem grossly unfair! So far they have taken my money and continue to ask for more. It is not at all representative of the loss incurred. Looking through threads it seems there are a few options. 'Parking Enforcement' say that I should appeal via IAS (by 21 days from the 16th of December.) I think I can continue to argue that there is no genuine pre-estimate of loss, and that this 'contractual payment' is clearly a penalty, but I also wonder whether I should question their contractual right to issue parking charges? They state they are allowed to clam but also that 'the service Parking Enforcement provides to the landowner is essentially free. In order to cover our operating costs, we issue a CPC under contract' therefore pay up. The letter does not fully address the issue of pre-estimate of loss - just says (in amongst various other standard irrelevancies) 'for your information, a pre-estimate of loss is not required as this charge has been issued under contractual agreement'.

Another irritating factor is that I think they try to pretend to be a council body - the address is given as something which my city is not usually called but which the council is called. Also, the so called 'appeals board' does not identify itself and states it is not based at Parking Enforcement offices but doesn't say where. So it is very hard to be sure that they have any say in the matter.

What next? Am I on strong enough grounds to take this further and what is the best way? I will try to post pictures of the letter I received and also the original PCN.

Many thanks for your help.

Marktheshark

They took the cheque as part payment and admission of the invoice.
That is very bad and very old advice on the MSE site.

BeeTrootfull

They are still demanding the full rate (with no pause for the appeal process.) I don't want the £20 back, but I am hoping not to have to pay more (best case) or to only pay £40 or at an absolute maximum £80 more but it would be extremely galling! They do not clearly state that the clock doesn't stop when the appeals process is instigated so surely it is unreasonable to ask for the higher rate? (Even if the earlier charge was reasonable which it is not.)

The goodwill payment is my own fault -- I mistakenly thought they might offer some goodwill in return.

Coupon-mad

That is a terrible appeal that MSE have allowed to stay on the site, it even gives away who was driving despite MSE Marcel's pm's with me and others a few months ago when we stressed the importance of NOT offering money nor saying who was driving. Awful template MSE!

'Parking Enforcement' = Sussex Security Solutions, am I right?

DO NOT BOTHER with IAS, here's why:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/independent-parking-committee-kangaroo.html

You seriously should not have sent them any money, they will have you on a mugs list now. Personally I would send them a shorter version of the 'first appeal' that I recommend on the NEWBIES thread, BUT ONLY using points 2 and 3, not calling it a 'drop hands offer' but amending it to say 'A £20 offer has been made and was accepted by you, so the matter is closed'. Then state that you made an offer, they accepted it (£20) so now you exercise your right to cancel the contract that they are still trying to enforce as it is wholly without merit and they have clearly accepted your payment which was full and final settlement. Continue with point 3 that you will see in the NEWBIES first appeal version, about the Regulations which allow Consumer Contracts to be cancelled. In fact, the offer made helps your situation a little because part of the Regs only apply where an offer has been made by the consumer.

Look at the first appeal in the newbies thread and don't beat yourself up about it because you would still have been told to ignore the IAS even if you had used 'my version' of a first appeal (you wouldn't have been £20 out of pocket though).

Show us the draft response before you send it (and that will be your final word so don't get embroiled in futher comms). These are ex-clamper chancers, not worthy of your money. You will now enjoy ignoring threatograms through most of 2015, just as we have done for decades! Only do ONE response and then sit tight, only taking seriously actual Court papers (come back here if so, do not panic, it would only be a small claim - no effect on credit rating and VERY defendable!). If you get a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones in 2015 also reply here and bumptthe thread so we can help with a formal response to that. NOT a report of every debt collector letter in the silly chain; we don't want to hear about them ever again, please, as that's pointless rubbish to be ignored.

HO87

The OP made it clear that they rejected SSS's demands (and by extension the alleged debt) and the cheque they enclosed with their letter was by way of a goodwill gesture. It is not for SSS to re-interpret that as a part payment. In cashing that cheque they have accepted the terms on which it was proffered. As far as I can see they have painted themselves into a corner and there is no realistic route they can use to resurrect the original purported debt.

I agree the OP should draft a letter but I think trying to turn that into a "Go Away in Short, Sharp, Jerky Movements" letter and an appeal is a non-starter. I would suggest something along the following lines:

Dear Sirs

Parking Charge Notice No XZXZXZXZ

I refer to the above matter and my letter of <date> and your response dated <date>.

I made it very clear in my original letter to you that I rejected your demands and in so doing denied the debt you allege arose as a consequence of a parking event. For the avoidance of doubt I deny that any debt exists or existed between us and I rejected your demands in pursuit of it.

My letter included an express, goodwill offer by way of settlement of the matter and in cashing the cheque I enclosed you have, by performance, accepted that offer.

The matter is therefore closed and I will not enter into any further correspondence save receipt of your written acceptance of the fact. Any further demands from you or your agents will be regarded as unwarranted and therefore harassment. You should now consider yourselves as being "on notice".

Yours faithfully

BeeTrootful

The old draft of that letter really should be deleted.

BeeTrootfull

Hello,

Many thanks all for your careful replies and help. Apologies for the delay in replying.

I don't know if 'Parking Enforcement' is Sussex Security Solutions - right neck of the woods but the letter head etc is at pains to look official with very little actual information on who they are, just a generic office address.

Here is my proposed new letter, a combination of the two approaches suggested above - would be great to hear what you think.

>>
I refer to the above matter and my letter of 29/11/2014 and your response dated 16/12/2014.

I made it very clear in my original letter to you that I rejected your demands and in so doing denied the debt you allege arose as a consequence of a parking event. For the avoidance of doubt I deny that any debt exists or existed between us and I reject your demands in pursuit of it.

My letter included an express, goodwill offer by way of settlement of the matter and in cashing the cheque I enclosed you have, by performance, accepted that offer. Any contract between is now terminated.

The alleged 'contract' was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. It is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. 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 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 £20, which payment was offered and accepted. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss. If the spurious charge is withdrawn I will not pursue you for my costs.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of these points. If you decide to persist with 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 further note that you have not provided any proof of contract between you and the landowner and you have continued to fail to provide any pre-estimate of loss which is required. The IAS does not fulfil the criteria for an independent appeals service and I will therefore not enter into correspondence with them.

The matter is therefore closed and I will not enter into any further correspondence save receipt of your written acceptance of the fact. Any further demands from you or your agents will be regarded as unwarranted and therefore harassment. You should now consider yourselves as being "on notice".


Yours faithfully,


>>

Thanks again.

The_Slithy_Tove

No!

Stick to HO87's briefer response. It says the matter is finished, closed, complete. By adding a load of stuff arguing over whether or not there was a contract only opens it all up for further debate. Adopting the approach of the user Gan on Pepipoo, always keep it short and straightforward. Never say anything you don't need to, because they'll only twist it and use it against you. This would be a classic case of allowing them such wriggle room.

Coupon-mad

just a generic office address.

Western Road Brighton = a postal address (not an office) for Sussex Security Solutions, whose letter heading misleadingly calls them 'Parking Enforcement'.

BeeTrootfull

Thanks again -- have taken the advice to go shorter and am sending the letter off. Hopefully I will hear no more but I will update with any news.

Coupon-mad

You will not here 'no more' they will send you all sorts of threatograms (not sure you have read enough threads yet if you think a mere letter shuts them up). But at least you know this is your final word, not to reply again unless they actually send you court papers or a real Letter before Claim.