*PCN received. Not my car. Not my full name. So what now?*

PhylPho

I've never had cause to visit this section of MSE before so am suddenly aware of the considerable goodwill shown and considerable time given by so many here to help other MSErs. I hope this enquiry of mine isn't too burdensome:

A letter received here at my home earlier this morning is addressed to "Mr Smith". No forename. No initial(s), either.

As I am the only '"Mr" at this address of that surname, I assumed it was for me and opened the letter. It's a Euro Car Parks PCN.

The PCN relates to a vehicle which I do not own, do not drive, nor of which I have ever been its registered keeper. The no-forename-no-initials "Mr Smith" alleged to be resident at this address is required to pay £80 within 28 days of the date of the letter (March 22nd 2017) or a discounted £40 if within 14 days.

Euro Car Parks has obtained its information from the DVLA, on which basis I surmise that the vehicle in question may be owned by a family member. That individual lived at my address until two years ago, but then moved several hundred miles away. Updating the DVLA with change of address details is that individual's responsibility. Not mine.

What I am wondering -- and sorry, I can't seem to find the answer in the wealth of information existing in this forum -- is what to do about this letter . . . because to all intents and purposes, it is addressed to someone who doesn't actually exist:

There is no "Mr Smith" living here who owns or has ever kept the vehicle referred to in the PCN. And there is no "Mr Smith" of this address who parked at a location 120 miles from here on the stated date.

Obviously, I'm not going to respond to this letter: it doesn't identify me as the intended addressee, and I don't identify myself with any of its contents. Nor am I over-troubled with considerations of morality when it comes to private car parks. Only legality.

On which basis, I am entirely unaware of any legal obligation upon myself to communicate to another family member, postal correspondence that may have been intended for such individual but was never mailed out with an accurate name and address.

Thoughts of wise ones here as to what -- if anything -- to do next would be appreciated.

PS: "Smith" is used in substitution of my actual surname for the purposes of this public forum post.

Half_way

Does your name feature anywhere on the letter?

Fruitcake

The problem is that ECP could progress this to court (I have no idea if that is likely) so if it was never contested it could cause problems.

If you know who the relevant person might be, you should contact them to find out if they updated their records with the DVLA. Not everyone is aware that this has to be done twice, once for the driving licence and once for the vehicle registration document.

I think you should respond to the scammers telling them that the keeper of that vehicle does not live at that address.

You should also contact the DVLA and ask their advice as well.

Meanwhile, wait to see what the more experienced regulars have to say. This could get messy if not dealt with properly.

PhylPho

Half_way wrote: »

Does your name feature anywhere on the letter?

Nope. My surname does, but there'll be umpteen thousands with the same one. There is, however, only one Mr Smith at the address used by ECP. . . but not the right Mr Smith.

Fruitcake wrote: »

The problem is that ECP could progress this to court (I have no idea if that is likely) so it was never contested it could cause problems.

Where criminal law is concerned, an arrest warrant issued for a Mr Smith at an address at which he does not reside would be no kind of arrest warrant at all. Likewise, a notification of a magistrates' court hearing sent to defendant Mr Smith at an address at which he doesn't reside would mean nothing either.

Contesting / responding / agreeing / whatever to ECP's parking invoice would be a matter for the individual for whom this correspondence may have been intended.

Fruitcake wrote: »

I think you should respond to the scammers telling them that the keeper of that vehicle does not live at that address.

I can see a valid reason for responding. . . if ECP had written specifically and unambigously to me. It hasn't.

What I'm attempting to clarify is if it is incumbent upon me, as a Mr Smith, to voluntarily assist a third party's ramshackle administrative process by taking the trouble to pass on its letter to a different Mr Smith.

If I don't do so, and the presumed recipient learns nothing of this matter . . . and if I don't myself communicate in any way with ECP but merely leave things to run their course . . . then what?

That's the conundrum.

Coupon-mad

They never try court (I think the odd one shown each year isn't v a driver):

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Euro_Car_Parks.html

...but that doesn't mean they never will. If the Mr Smith was my relative I would pass it to them and encourage them to come here to appeal.

beamerguy

OK, so you real name is not Smith, best keep it that way so we will refer to Smith

The PPC would have got the address from the DVLA as you know and would have been provided with the same info as per the registration details.

You should request info from the DVLA about when the PPC requested this and what details the DVLA gave to them.

Even though this goes against the grain, you should write to the PPC asking to which Mr Smith they refer to and sign it off as Mr Smith.

Please understand that these PPC's are working within the imbecile
bracket of life and will find it difficult to understand which in turn means they will ignore and commence the harassment they are well known for.

If they fail to reply and it did end up in court then which Mr Smith would appear on court papers ???

Fruitcake

PhylPho wrote: »

Nope. My surname does, but there'll be umpteen thousands with the same one. There is, however, only one Mr Smith at the address used by ECP. . . but not the right Mr Smith.



Where criminal law is concerned, an arrest warrant issued for a Mr Smith at an address at which he does not reside would be no kind of arrest warrant at all. Likewise, a notification of a magistrates' court hearing sent to defendant Mr Smith at an address at which he doesn't reside would mean nothing either.

Contesting / responding / agreeing / whatever to ECP's parking invoice would be a matter for the individual for whom this correspondence may have been intended.



I can see a valid reason for responding. . . if ECP had written specifically and unambigously to me. It hasn't.

What I'm attempting to clarify is if it is incumbent upon me, as a Mr Smith, to voluntarily assist a third party's ramshackle administrative process by taking the trouble to pass on its letter to a different Mr Smith.

If I don't do so, and the presumed recipient learns nothing of this matter . . . and if I don't myself communicate in any way with ECP but merely leave things to run their course . . . then what?

That's the conundrum.

We are talking abut Civil or Contract law here, not criminal law.

Personally I would contact the DVLA, and also tell the scammers that this is not a service address for the keeper of that vehicle, which you have never owned, never driven, and never been the keeper of.

Johno100

PhylPho wrote: »

Nope. My surname does, but there'll be umpteen thousands with the same one. There is, however, only one Mr Smith at the address used by ECP. . . but not the right Mr Smith.

But the right Mr. Smith could well be the relative who used to reside at your address? Have you asked that Mr. Smith if the vehicle in question is his?

And while you assume he updated his details with the DVLA, it has been observed on this board on a number of occasions that some individuals mistakenly believe that by changing the address on their driving licence they also update the registered keeper information for their vehicles. So I'd suggest a double check that (assuming it's his vehicle) the V5c (AKA Log Book) does show his correct address and not yours.

PhylPho wrote: »

Where criminal law is concerned, an arrest warrant issued for a Mr Smith at an address at which he does not reside would be no kind of arrest warrant at all. Likewise, a notification of a magistrates' court hearing sent to defendant Mr Smith at an address at which he doesn't reside would mean nothing either.

Contesting / responding / agreeing / whatever to ECP's parking invoice would be a matter for the individual for whom this correspondence may have been intended.

I can see a valid reason for responding. . . if ECP had written specifically and unambigously to me. It hasn't.

What I'm attempting to clarify is if it is incumbent upon me, as a Mr Smith, to voluntarily assist a third party's ramshackle administrative process by taking the trouble to pass on its letter to a different Mr Smith.

If I don't do so, and the presumed recipient learns nothing of this matter . . . and if I don't myself communicate in any way with ECP but merely leave things to run their course . . . then what?

Well worst case scenario, ECP go to court, get a default judgment against your relative/you, seek to enforce it and you get bailiffs knocking at your door at some ungodly hour wanting paying.

Fruitcake

Johno100 wrote: »

Well worst case scenario, ECP go to court, get a default judgment against your relative/you, seek to enforce it and you get bailiffs knocking at your door at some ungodly hour wanting paying.

Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. If this isn't dealt with, the keeper of the vehicle in question could end up going to court, get a default judgement, get a CCJ, not pay it, and get a court order to send bailiffs round to their last known address, (the OP's) without anyone knowing about it.

You would then have to deal with someone on your doorstep, or even in your house if they find a door or window open, trying to take your goods and you would have to prove to them that they had the wrong Mr Smith.

PhylPho

Hi everyone: Thanks for all the input -- much appreciated. Just to clarify: I've no idea whether or not t'other Mr Smith updated his details with the DVLA or not. Could be that he didn't. Or, if he did, then DVLA didn't. Either way: neither the vehicle nor the alleged contractual breach by a driver of that vehicle has anything to do with me.

Re court action: obviously, no default judgment could ever be obtained against me if I chose to alert the court that the plaintiff's case was materially inaccurate. However. . .

The sheer tedium of that, even if it might be to the ultimate discomfiture of the plaintiff, doesn't particularly appeal. It might also rebound on the individual actually concerned: I'm assuming, it's some kind of offence not to provide DVLA with up-to-date vehicle keeper details.

For now then, I'll see how best to get in touch with the other Mr Smith, aware as I am of this 14-day / 28-day payment caveat -- though it's surely a moot point that any clock can commence ticking on the date of a letter sent to the wrong person at the wrong address.

I'll also follow beamerguy's suggestion that, yes, I write to the PPC (early next week) to state that though I am a Mr Smith resident at this address, the content of its letter leads me to conclude that I am not the Mr Smith with whom it they seem have some kind of disagreement. It will therefore assist me greatly if they could let me know which Mr Smith they have in mind, and where that Mr Smith is. Sincerely yours: Mr Smith.

As to coupon-mad: yup, many thanks. I'll encourage t'other Mr Smith to come on here if he thinks he may, possibly, have credible grounds for disputing the other party's claim.

Thanks again everyone; a good (and sunshiney) weekend to you all.

Guys_Dad

Why make a mountain out of a molehill??

You write to the PPC - or email them - saying that various Mr Smiths have resided at this address in the past but you are the only Mr Smith now there. Inform them that you are not in possession of the addresses of the other Mr Smiths and since they failed to identify which one, you are unable to help.

I would confirm that you have never owned the said vehicle and they should now cease from contacting you.

Then sign with your fore and surnames.

That is the easiest first step.