Invoicing Conkai Security for wasting my time

9Sublime

HI all,

A bit of background to my PCN thus far:

About 4 months ago in Oxford, my car was slapped with a £100 fine by Conkai Security Ltd. for parking in an empty private car park for about 4 or 5 minutes.

Problem Number 1: They wrote the registration down wrong on the PCN ticket. It started
my reg with a Y instead of a K. I decided I would have some fun with them, because I'm all for a good loophole.

I ignored the original charge notice, until they finally worked out their mistake, and sent an NTK to my address.

Problem Number 2: The NTK arrived 87 days after the original issuing of the invalid NTD.

I sent them this letter as a response:

Dear Conkai Security Ltd.,

On the 8th of June 2015, a letter was received from your organisation, demanding payment of £100 for a ‘Parking Charge’. Enclosed is a scanned copy of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), which was erroneously attached to a Vauxhall Corsa windscreen on the 14th of March 2015.

The vehicle registration on the PCN reads YXXX XXX. There is clearly some confusion on your part, as this is not the registration of a Vauxhall Corsa. I suggest you contact the keeper of the aforementioned vehicle registration, in order to try and retrieve the money you assert is owed.

However, as you are no doubt aware, the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012), Section 56, ‘Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges’, states that certain conditions must be met, in order for a PCN to be legally enforceable:
• The Notice to Driver (NTD) must correctly specify the vehicle in question, otherwise it is invalid.
• If a valid NTD is not issued at the time of the supposed offence, as in this instance, a Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be served within 14 days (and where a valid NTD has been issued, no more than 56 days can elapse).
• In this instance, 87 days elapsed between the date of the supposed violation, and the delivery of the NTK.

Accordingly, any future communication to the registered keeper regarding this matter, either from Conkai Security Ltd., or any third party acting on their behalf, will be deemed unsolicited harassment.

If Conkai Security Ltd. wishes to pursue communication regardless, any further telephone calls, emails or letters to the keeper, relating to this issue, will be charged at a fee of £100 per communication.

However, if payment is received within 28 days of initiating a communication, a reduced charge of £60 will be accepted as full and final settlement. Failure to make payment within 28 days will result in the full charge of £100 being applied, plus any additional costs incurred through debt recovery and/or court action.

I trust this will be the end of the matter.



Expecting to hear nothing more, I then received this letter in the post from them yesterday, with an attached black and white photo of my vehicle.

I have copied it verbatim, including the horrific punctuation and grammar:

Dear Mrs (I am a man...) xxxx xxxx,

We refer to your correspondence received on 08 June 2015 in connection with the above PCN.

In response to the issue you have raised regarding the registration mark recorded on the Parking Charge Notice. We must advise you that this error does not render the above notice invalid. As you will see from our enclosed photographs it is also your vehicle as shown on our photographic evidence.

In order to settle the parking charge notice, the payment of £100 is to be received within our office by the 10th July 2015.

Payments can be made online at [website URL] by following the links for "PCN Payment", or over the phone by using a valid credit or debit card. Alternatively, you can pay by cheque or postal order through the post. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that payment is received within our office, and by the relevant date, as stated above.

It is important to note that should no payment be received by the above mentioned date, then any further appeals made after this time will not be accepted.

Your sincerely,

Miss G Burdis


I then responded with the following letter:

Dear Conkai Security,

I look forward to seeing you in court,

Kind regards.

I then attached another sheet of paper detailing a full invoice for the sum of £100, but allowing a £60 payment should it be paid within 28 days. The service rendered was described as "My time and stamps wasted responding to your unsolicited harassment."

I just wanted people's opinions on what their next move will likely be, and if I may have slipped up anywhere along the way.

I am aware my approach may not be to everyone's taste, and that one is better off ignoring these things completely, but when the dopey warden can't even write the reg down right on essential paperwork, I think it is fair game.

fisherjim

I like that, I'm sure they will come up with more threatening letters though, they are just too arrogant as can be seen!

Coupon-mad

one is better off ignoring these things completely,

With IPC members like these numbskulls, it's debateable whether to contact them at all seeing as IAS is as far away from an 'ADR' as you could imagine, may as well write an appeal to Will Hurley himself.

Did they not even offer the ''Hurley special'' - IAS?

Actually it might be amusing to try an appeal as registered keeper to the IAS in your case, and watch them find in favour of the PPC. I bet the IAS would say you lose and the PPC wins even though that would be completely ridiculous (no change there then). IAS wins by motorists are a myth IMHO.

9Sublime

I plan to keep sending them threatening invoices long after they stop sending me threatening letters.

ManxRed

Coupon-mad wrote: »

IAS wins by motorists are a myth IMHO.

I completely agree with this.

bod1467

So the (very) small number of people posting here about their IAS appeal wins are all liars? Really?

Half_way

£100 is a little too high to be taken seriously, also have you included the land owner in on any costs?

ManxRed

bod1467 wrote: »

So the (very) small number of people posting here about their IAS appeal wins are all liars? Really?

I've read one (where someone provided proof that they were elsewhere for a ticket issued on non-relevant land).

IAS claim 20% are upheld. If that was the case then you'd expect to see a lot more than that on here, given that forum-assisted appeals ought to be more successful than those from Joe Layman.

That's a myth. Got to be.

bod1467

Oh absolutely! I don't doubt in any way that the motorist win-rate is anywhere near 20% at IAS.

bazster

If you get your claim against them to court you will fail, but if you are up for it you can have a lot of fun threatening and harassing them along the way. After all, that's the MO they use, right?


And you never know, they might cough up just to get rid of you.

benduncan

I have had exactly the same experience with them. parked in a private car park with permission. I appealed with proof I had permission to park where I did and they rejected it. Needless to say i will not be paying and will take it to court too! Crooks!!!