Myparkingcharge.co.uk

Fruitcake

marcinoza wrote: »

I decided to make paper plane lol, I was speaking to my friend who's working as a driver and he got many parking charges from private companies before and never paid for it. I think, I will only pay that if I'll get a letter from court. I think those companies are targeted to scam more people rather than fight against them in court.

Ignoring has not been advised here since the law changed in 2012. The advice is to read the NEWBIES thread then appeal. Parking scammers have six years to take you to court.
Ignoring before 2012 would not normally result in court unless someone was foolish enough to reveal the driver's identity.
Since 2012 the keeper could now be liable, and the scammers have access to the keeper's name and address. That is a game changer.
Ignore at your peril, especially if you move house before six years is up. Many people have ended up with a CCJ either because they ignored everything or they were unaware they had been taken to court and lost because they had moved.
In one of the worst cases someone was made homeless because they had sold their house and then couldn't get a mortgage for their new property because of an unknown CCJ, and the PCN wasn't even for their car.

marcinoza

Have you seen that guys? that still applies to Scotland
youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA

twhitehousescat

marcinoza wrote: »

Have you seen that guys? that still applies to Scotland
youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA

paper airoplanes are now frowned on by H+S

Jodiie

I'm not even sure if I have done this right so please bare with me!
I need some advice
I was recently in a car accident, I was going straight down a road when abother car travelling opposite way pulled into my lane of traffic trying to get down a side road .
In my eyes she was to blame for the accident as I was going straight and she pulled into me.
However today I got a letter from my solicitor saying she is not admitting liability
And had to fill out loads of paper work
Is this usually the case? And what happens next?

twhitehousescat

wrong forum , not sure where to advise , but not parking ticket related

HO87

Jodiie wrote: »

I'm not even sure if I have done this right so please bare with me!
I need some advice
I was recently in a car accident, I was going straight down a road when abother car travelling opposite way pulled into my lane of traffic trying to get down a side road .
In my eyes she was to blame for the accident as I was going straight and she pulled into me.
However today I got a letter from my solicitor saying she is not admitting liability
And had to fill out loads of paper work
Is this usually the case? And what happens next?

As said above you are in the wrong forum. I suggest you click on this link and repost you questions there: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70

pappa_golf wrote: »

Ps myparkingcharge.co.uk are not in an ATA and (should) be reported to the police for trying to obtain monies

Oh do behave. It is not a fraud and you know it - even if its a bit of a try-on. Besides at this stage the police will only refer the OP to Action Fraud (another bunch of oxygen thieves more aptly named Complete and Utter Inaction Fraud) and they'll end up going round in circles chasing their tail.

Going back to C-M's analysis I disagree.

Neither VCS nor Excel claim to adhere to POFA (until they get to court) and from that point of view the notice put on the OP's vehicle is so deficient that it cannot possibly equate to a Notice to Driver within the meaning of the act. The only condition it fulfils is that it was placed on the vehicle at the time or at least before it was removed from the relevant land. However, I do not believe that the purpose of this notice is anything to do with conforming to the act

Furthermore, I see no reason why, if they wanted to comply with POFA, that VCS/Excel/myparkingcharge.co.uk couldn't retrieve the situation by issuing a compliant Notice to Keeper within the 14 days. That, no doubt, will contain details of how to register an appeal and I'd just bet a pound to a pinch that the NtK states that all appeals must be made online via their portal. That is, I suspect, where the original notice comes into play.

It was suggested earlier that this otherwise useless notice was a phishing exercise and that is exactly what I believe it is. Aside from enabling early payment from those poor souls who feel compelled to pay up on the basis of this rag I suspect that that this notice is intended to drive people to the website to look at the details the company holds and with that their IP address is captured. There's no necessity to make lengthy and costly applications to service providers for user details all that needs to be done is to compare the IP address initially captured with the IP address recorded against any appeal.

If they match VCS/Excel/myparkingcharge.co.uk will argue that the initial enquiry is, on the balance of probabilities, likely to have come from the driver and because the subsequent appeal came from the same IP address after the serving of a Notice to Keeper that the driver and keeper/appellant is, again, on the balance of probabilities, one and the same. No necessity to try and argue Elliott -v- Loake or Barnard -v- Sully.

I therefore suggest to the OP that whatever else is done that any appeal is not made online but by post or, if the OP uses such a service that any subsequent visits to the myparkingcharge.co.uk site to view the material or to appeal online is made via a VPN or proxy.

As far as new users are concerned I suggest that all enquiries/appeals are either made from different locations - a public library/internet cafe are good examples or using a proxy/VPN - and never from your home or place of work.

If by the time you catch up with this post you have already visited myparkingcharge.co.uk from your home/office make sure that any appeal is made from a different location altogether.

IP addresses data on its own is not personal data but is once it is coupled with other information - such as might be obtained when a appeal is submitted or payment made. myparkingcharge.co.uk is not registered with the ICO and nor is it declared as a trading style of any of S-RS's businesses - including Historic Inns Ltd. The registrant of the domain name is recorded as Excel Parking Services Ltd.

beamerguy

HO87 wrote: »

There's no necessity to make lengthy and costly applications to service providers for user details all that needs to be done is to compare the IP address initially captured with the IP address recorded against any appeal.

If they match VCS/Excel/myparkingcharge.co.uk will argue that the initial enquiry is, on the balance of probabilities, likely to have come from the driver and because the subsequent appeal came from the same IP address after the serving of a Notice to Keeper that the driver and keeper/appellant is, again, on the balance of probabilities, one and the same. No necessity to try and argue Elliott -v- Loake or Barnard -v- Sully.

I therefore suggest to the OP that whatever else is done that any appeal is not made online but by post or, if the OP uses such a service that any subsequent visits to the myparkingcharge.co.uk site to view the material or to appeal online is made via a VPN or proxy.

As far as new users are concerned I suggest that all enquiries/appeals are either made from different locations - a public library/internet cafe are good examples or using a proxy/VPN - and never from your home or place of work.

IP addresses data on its own is not personal data but is once it is coupled with other information - such as might be obtained when a appeal is submitted or payment made. myparkingcharge.co.uk is not registered with the ICO and nor is it declared as a trading style of any of S-RS's businesses - including Historic Inns Ltd. The registrant of the domain name is recorded as Excel Parking Services Ltd.

I am unsure why you are talking about IP addresses ?
Yes, any web site can pick up the IP Address but it gives a general location

As someone is only going to appeal once, I hardly think they will keep going back to the site.
Even if they did, it would make no difference and certainly would not offer any evidence as to the driver V the RK

There might be 6 people living in the property so no
balance of probabilities.

What about a big old house converted to many flats and there is a internet connection whereby everyone can pick up WI-FI ?

Offices with a general internet connection with maybe 100 employees ?

Any PPC who thinks they could trap people from their IP address would be more idiotic than they are now

HO87

beamerguy wrote: »

I am unsure why you are talking about IP addresses ?
Yes, any web site can pick up the IP Address but it gives a general location

As someone is only going to appeal once, I hardly think they will keep going back to the site.
Even if they did, it would make no difference and certainly would not offer any evidence as to the driver V the RK

There might be 6 people living in the property so no
balance of probabilities.

What about a big old house converted to many flats and there is a internet connection whereby everyone can pick up WI-FI ?

Offices with a general internet connection with maybe 100 employees ?

Any PPC who thinks they could trap people from their IP address would be more idiotic than they are now

The "idiocy" that needs to be dealt with (better described as simple ignorance) is not that of the PPC's but of the average man in the street and the courts.

beamerguy

HO87 wrote: »

The "idiocy" that needs to be dealt with (better described as simple ignorance) is not that of the PPC's but of the average man in the street and the courts.

I would agree with the ignorance of the courts but that is improving
It would not be fair to class a motorist as ignorant because for too many dealing with the cowboys, it is their first time and the methods of the cowboys goes well beyond what they see as a fair society

Those who clearly are ignorant can be classed as .....
MARCUS JONES MP
BPA/IPC
The Justice Secretary
The DVLA

And to top it off ... Mrs May, ex Home Secretary (who I know you love HO87)
May knows all about this problem but allows the scammers to continue ..... THE LADY HAS NO IDEA

HO87

beamerguy wrote: »

I would agree with the ignorance of the courts but that is improving
It would not be fair to class a motorist as ignorant because for too many dealing with the cowboys, it is their first time and the methods of the cowboys goes well beyond what they see as a fair society

Those who clearly are ignorant can be classed as .....
MARCUS JONES MP
BPA/IPC
The Justice Secretary
The DVLA

And to top it off ... Mrs May, ex Home Secretary (who I know you love HO87)
May knows all about this problem but allows the scammers to continue ..... THE LADY HAS NO IDEA

The word "ignorant" was not used perjoratively as far as motorists are concerned but as a simple description. However, the other bodies you have set out above give the impression of being wilfully ignorant. No one wants to grasp this nettle because the establishment, sucked in by the slick, snake oil peddling of PPC fellow-travellers, are only now realising that they have allowed a monster to evolve that they cannot now control. It involves far too much money.

As far as May is concerned I doubt she actually knows anything especially when it comes to PPC World. She's far to busy polishing her red shoes and polishing up her faux Home Counties accent. As for "love" BG you stand a far greater chance than May ever would. If she and I were the only humans left on the planet I can assure you the human race would be doomed to extinction.