New Generation Parking advice

Dave82517

Hey guys, ive been running through the stickies on how to deal with my problem and hit a confusing point that i hope you can shed some light on for me.

i received a pcn dated 8/10/14 for the amount of £60 for my vehicle being in a carpark in cardiff bay. Carpark was previously a pizza hut, now shut down and derelict. Reason for pcn being 'not registered on site', parking event occuring on 4/10/14. After browsing the stickies i posted the following to the company as per advised on 27/10/14 (recorded post).

---

Date


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.

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.

Yours faithfully,


{the registered keeper's name}

ADD A SQUIGGLE IF POSTING IT - NO NEED TO USE A REAL SIGNATURE

---

Since this i have received the secondary pcn with the charge of £100 on 12/11/14. I received no receipt of them receiving my letter and no reply to it. Today i received a letter dated 30/12/14 (bloody christmas post) from a company called zzps saying they contacted me previously about this pcn (which they havnt unless they mean the new gen parking letters?) now stating a balance of £160 and stating that the next step is being passed on to the clients solicitors. As far as im aware there is nothing tying either of these companys to whoever owns the site.

what should be my next course of action? Any advice welcome as i couldnt work it out from reading the various paths in the sticky threads.

Thanks, Dave

Fruitcake

Ignore the debt collector. All you get from them is poor quality bog paper.

Complain to the BPA and DVLA that your appeal has been ignored. Info on how to do this with names and email addresses are all in the NEWBIES thread.

Well done on doing the first appeal without first asking for help here. It is like a breath of fresh air when a poster does their research before posting their query.

Dave82517

Thanks, i had intended to do the whole thing alone and spent a good while plowing through the newbies advice before feeling at a loose end, and this was the last resort.
Ive kept everything to do with this handy on the chance this does go any further, at least then i have this thread to fall back on for further advice.

System

I would suggest you also complain to Trading Standards at Cardiff CC. SBumford@cardiff.gov.uk

He already has a file on this company and every complaint will help.

Mr Bumford is also certain that these are penalties but its OK as the BPA says it's OK.

:rotfl:

First post whoo hoo

More over at Pepipoo

Coupon-mad

And did you read yesterday's thread about New Generation where the BPA believed that NGP had 'put the decision following an appeal on their website' (!) with the POPLA code (apparently) then just (allegedly but a pack of liiiiiiies) sent a link to the appellant. Sure they did. But at least NGP cancelled it when rumbled.

Search this parking forum for 'embarrassed' or 'generation' to read it.

The OP of that other thread complained to the BPA, which is what you need to do, as well as a complaint to the person mentioned by 'IamEmanresu' = a nice helpful first post from - probably - the only poster here who has been to my house!

Dave82517

Small update to this. On the 19/2 i received a letter from Wright Hassall solicitors (yes i laughed at Right Hassle too). Anywhos, they say that the issue has been passed onto them, the bill now standing at £178, and that i have 14 days to pay before they pass it on to their litigation dept and look to obtain a CCJ. Then theres a bunch of speel about affecting credit ratings, current employment and hiring bailiffs. Will these jokers ever give up? every time i think ive heard the last of them i get something new.

ManxRed

I think people should be reporting that Right Hassle letter to the SRA. It's clearly been written by the Debt Collector using Right Hassle headed paper and is misleading about how easy it appears to be for them to 'obtain' a CCJ, and screw up your credit rating, when in fact they need to beat you in court first (and then you continue to refuse to pay) before that happens.

Obviously they forget to mention that bit.

Ralph-y

taken from a current thread ....

" report@sra.org.uk
With a covering write up complaining that the firm are sending out what they claim to be 'solicitors' letters which are not actually signed by a 'solicitor' "

Ralph:cool:

Dave82517

Yet another update to this, NGP and Wright Hassel have now started a small claims appeal against me. Suggestions for my defence?

This is getting ridiculous now, total is up to £278 now

Herzlos

Have you complained to the SRA about them? I'd certainly mention that claim in your response.

Just fill out the court paperwork as it directs you. Assuming you have real court paperwork - check with the court.

What exactly have you received so far?

None of the numbers look right, I'm sure they can only add £50 as a hearing fee, not £100, so I suspect this isn't a real court claim.

Dave82517

Its a real claim, i can log into mcol and theres a case filed against me. The original fee was the 60/100, they then increased it to 178, plus 25 court fees and 50 solicitors costs (wish i could find a solicitor for 50 sheets) totalling 253