HELP - Premier Park "Offer to settle to avoid court proceedings"

zardoz70

You can't.
Which is why it is a very good argument for any defence, especially if you have photographs.

VIxie83_2

Unfortunately the time I was there was in the morning but I parked in the one space which has no sign in the bay.

Coupon-mad

VIxie83 wrote: »

Unfortunately the time I was there was in the morning but I parked in the one space which has no sign in the bay.

Stop worrying. Cases that end up needing a defence written and commented on here, win, almost every time. I can only recall 2 x UKPC cases lost last year - NONE lost v anyone else, not from defences assisted here.

Chances of a court claim are VERY minimal. I've ignored debt collector letter chains myself re fake PCNs like this; all we ask is please, no blow by blow post about every daft letter.

Please spare us now - NOT the 'oh another one arrived' then please no: ''eeek, Wright Hassall have written, is this a real solicitor?''

Search the forum and spare us - unless you get a claim!

Redx

VIxie83 wrote: »

Unfortunately the time THE DRIVER was there was in the morning but THE DRIVER parked in the one space which has no sign in the bay.

I have altered the last quote , please study it for the change and in future please make sure you dont give information away on open forums that parking companies read

rahzel

Hi, I recently appealed against a PCN when parked in a space outside a Subway which apparently belonged to Vets4Pets. I sent the following letter to PP but today received a letter back that my appeal has been denied:

You issued me with a Parking Charge Notice on 1 February 2017, which I received by post on 4 February 2017, however I believe it was unfairly issued. I will not be paying your demand for £100 payment for the following reasons:

1. There was insufficient signage
The specific location where I parked within the car park in question has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Please see attached evidence I have submitted as proof:

1.1 The area where I actually parked has a totally different concreted surface compared to the adjacent tarmacked parking area, which is clearly designated by signs for Vets 4 Pets customers.
1.2 The concreted area is directly in front of Subway and there is a very large welcoming Subway sign erected within this concreted surfaced bay. Therefore it is reasonable for one to believe that the concreted area in question belongs to Subway and specifically provided for Subway customers.
1.3 The white ‘Welcome Private Land’ sign is located within the tarmacked surface and outside the boundary of the concreted area. This therefore implies that the boundary changes at this point.

1.4 Above the parking bays within the tarmacked area, there are clearly visible black Vets 4 Pets signs that state “Client Parking Only”. There are no such signs displayed within the boundaries of the concreted surfaced area where I parked.

2. The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable
The large sum of £100 demanded amounts to a penalty and is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to your company or the landowner and therefore is not a reasonable charge.

2.1 Your monetary claim is disproportionate, punitive and unjustifiable in total. It may also be deemed an unfair term under the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.

2.2 Vets 4 Pets clients are entitled to up to 2 hours free upon registering their details, thus the £100 charge for a 10-minute period far exceeds the costs incurred by the landowner in this incident. I therefore feel the charge you have asked for is totally excessive and unreasonable.

Please provide a breakdown of how your charge demanded is calculated so that I can further consider whether it amounts to a penalty.

Furthermore, I have witness statements from staff at the Subway on Spring Road who have stated that they have had many customers who have been mislead through lack of adequate signage.

Notwithstanding I have enclosed a cheque for £15.00 in good faith, which once cashed shall be deemed to be considered as full and final settlement to cover any admin charges/inconveniences caused by this matter excluding my own.

If you choose to pursue this matter any further 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 all the specific points raised in this letter.

- End of letter -

Are you able to advise next steps? My main point is that the fact that they have a large subway sign erected on their land this is very misleading?

Redx

please start your own thread using the red NEW THREAD button , top left of this parking sub-forum

copy and paste the above into your opening post

then you will get assistance and advice

VIxie83_2

Hi guys, so I have had about 3 or 4 letters from Wright Hassall and they've been phoning me nearly every day for the past couple of weeks to my mobile which I've been ignoring - I have read the newbies post but I couldn't find anything about phone calls. I have now had a letter today which says "FORMAL LETTER OF CLAIM" with all the usual stuff about paying the debt, court and CCJ's etc.. and one of the last paragraphs states "This letter is a Letter Before Claim pursuant to the Practice Direction on Pre Action Conduct and Protocols, copies of which may found at ....etc..."

Is this a letter before claim or are they still just using scare tactics? Thanks in advance.

Redx

you said that you had 3 or 4 letters from WH, but is that true ? ie:- did you actually check that they were from WH and not DCA letters , we only have your word that they were from WH and generally speaking this is not the case

so if the new letter is ACTUALLY from WH themselves , then its probably an LBC , so check who it tells you to contact etc , then rebut and refute etc using LBC replies to formulate one that goes direct to WH

if the contact details are a DCA, then its a debt letter , which you ignore (even if it has a WH letterhead)

so its spot the difference time, then act accordingly

or as CM said , come back if you get a court claim (which is an MCOL from Northampton)

ps:- its ALL scare tactics , hence the "spot the difference" comments

DoaM

Redx wrote: »

so check who it tells you to contact etc

That's the important part ... if it tells you to contact Debt Recovery Plus or Zenith (or ZZPS?) then it's just another debt letter. If it tells you to contact WH themselves then treat it as a LBC.

Fruitcake

We have seen a lot of these Letter OF Claim rubbish, as opposed to a Letter Before Claim. I suspect like all the others it is a debt collector letter.
We also often see debt collector letters where they have bought WH letter headings to make it look as though it is from a solicitor.

We would need to see it to be sure, but as above, see who it is they are acting for/asking you to pay or contact.

Personally if they asked me about settling to avoid court I would ask how much they are going to offer me, otherwise get on with it and stop faffing about with toothless debt crawlers.