We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

DRP Notice of intended court action

Hi, new to the forum and just wanting some advice.

Back in March (1/3/16) I parked in a car park I use for work three times a week. As usual I paid and displayed. Unfortunately for whatever reason when I came back to the car I had a parking charge notice for £60 as the ticket I'd purchased wasn't displayed ans had flipped upside down onto the dashboard.

I first emailed VCS a copy of the ticket explaining the weather conditions must have caused the ticket to move in the car. They replied with a letter stating that my ticket was not displayed correctly and as no mitigating circumstances have been given they saw no reason to warrant cancellation of the notice.

I then replied stating they didn't provide tickets which stick on and that they were welcome to take me to court.

Since then we've had three more similar letters from VCS each one becoming more 'urgent' and we haven't responded.

Three weeks ago we got a letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd asking for £160 which we ignored. They followed up that letter today with similar trying to frighten us into paying with a letter talking about landmark ruling Beavis v Parking Eye.

So basically I could do with a bit of advice. We have retained the ticket purchased for parking on the day which covers us for the date and time of the penalty. We have also checked the weather that week as from memory it was quite windy and the weather that week of March was quite poor and it's an open car park and also since then they have changed the pay and display tickets they give out from non-sticky ones to sticky tickets.

What's the likehood of them getting something from this if it goes to court and what should our next action be?
«13

Comments

  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Yes, the link shown above is the only way to treat DRP -- IGNORE

    The Beavis case was nothing to do with a paid for ticket which was upside down. DRP are the clowns in this industry.

    More so, did VCS provide a picture of the upside down ticket on your dashboard
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    Beavis overstayed nearly an hour in a free car park with no facility to buy extra time, ignore Beavis, it is a red herring. If they were to try court they would struggle with Beavis.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • fisherjim
    fisherjim Posts: 7,111 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    DRP Notice of intended court action

    Is a lie! They can't take anyone to court, and if it does go to court DRP (via the PPC) they won't get their rake off so that's the very last thing they want!
  • Looby78
    Looby78 Posts: 9 Forumite
    Cheers for the replies. I'm checking out threads and forums on here but it was confusing so I thought I'd post the thread. Apologies if it's something you see countless times a day, but I'm just wading through things trying to make sense of it all.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 162,011 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    OK, you should also forewarn yourself as to the BW Legal letter - and unlike daft debt collector call centres, that letter DOES need a response. Excel are the sister firm of VCS and one is more litigious than the other...luckily yours is VCS, less litigious by far!

    But both are using BW Legal solicitor's letters and Excel in particular, are suing some people. Search the forum for 'BW Legal VCS' to learn about the response to send to that one. Even if a case went to small claims (very rare) it has no effect on your credit as long as you then defended and didn't miss any deadline. Cases are defendable and winnable and unlikely anyway, from VCS.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Hi again. Last week I received a letter from BW Legal asking for the amount of £100PCN plus initial legal costs of £60. It states they require payment in full within 16 days of the letter and if we fail to do so or provide reasons for non payment in that time frame they will see their clients instructions to commence legal proceeding against us in the form of a county court claim form in the county court.

    I take it this is the LBA people speak of and I need to seek out the response to this? Thank for the replies so far guys, it's appreciated.
  • pappa_golf
    pappa_golf Posts: 8,895 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Looby78 wrote: »
    Hi again. Last week I received a letter from BW Legal asking for the amount of £100PCN plus initial legal costs of £60. It states they require payment in full within 16 days of the letter and if we fail to do so or provide reasons for non payment in that time frame they will see their clients instructions to commence legal proceeding against us in the form of a county court claim form in the county court.

    I take it this is the LBA people speak of and I need to seek out the response to this? Thank for the replies so far guys, it's appreciated.

    £100PCN plus initial legal costs of £60.

    a figure both they and the courts know is not acceptable
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    If they took this to court they would struggle. More and more judges appear to be recognizing these claims as cons and finding for the motorist
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • Redx
    Redx Posts: 38,084 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Looby78 wrote: »

    I take it this is the LBA people speak of and I need to seek out the response to this? Thank for the replies so far guys, it's appreciated.

    in a word , YES , seek out the responses posted on here or over on pepipoo (by GAN) and ALWAYS REPLY and refute everything they say

    they wont read it , but it helps you to have a paper trail for the judge
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.5K Life & Family
  • 261.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.