Parking threats: ZZPS - BPA (parking eye Vs beavis)

catoutthebag

So, 2-3 months ago, I parked on a private piece of land for 2 minutes while I went to get my tea, in the knowledge it was late evening and they couldn't really enforce anything based on previous experience and Information here.

I received a letter asking a fine not long after, and since then, a few letters threatening court.

It wouldn't normally bother me, but in one letter they referenced a case saying private carparks are now winning (parking eye Vs beavis). But I also recently saw on the news about someone who ignored and went to court and got thousands in fines due to private carparks.

So slightly worried and wondering whether to pay up?

The last year from last week is from ZZPS LIMITED. They are referencing the case saying it's enforceable, and does not breach the Unfair Terms in consumer contracts regulations 1998

The bottom of the letter has various stampings: BPA, DMUK (Disabled motoring UK, apparently!?)

The event was from end of December 2016, and the 'fine' stands at £200.

Continue to ignore?

pogofish

Post Four of the Newbies Sticky covers ZZPS in detail.

waamo

You shouldn't have ignored it in the first place. MSE regulars haven't advised that since 2012 but we are where we are.

Since you've gone down that path it's probably best to stick to it. Currently you have debt collectors sending you scary letters. Luckily they are powerless other than to send scary letters.

Some more information would be useful like who is the ppc and where are you, England, Scotland,Wales, NI?

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

These scammers exist because people have a habit of parking on private property when they shouldn't.

The advice to ignore has not been given here since the law changed in 2012.

What is the name of the parking company, the date of the alleged event, and the date the keeper first received anything through the post?

catoutthebag

I'm in England. It was in a 'retail park' (basically a side road off a side road near a parade of shops. I've had one letter each month roughly since January. The client name is 'civil enforcement ltd'

catoutthebag

So if they are POWERLESS and the advice has been given NOT to ignore 2012, what exactly do you do, why write back when a) they are powerless b) they just send a generic threatening letter back.

Fruitcake

Debt collectors are powerless and can safely be ignored anywhere in the UK, as explained in the NEWBIES thread.

CEL could take the driver, if they know who it is ( so you don't tell them) or the keeper to the small claims court. If you look at the BMPA motoring charity website they will tell you the likelihood of this. They have six years to try in England and Wales.

Again please provide the date of the alleged event, and the day the keeper received the NTK.

catoutthebag

End of December was the date.

Fruitcake

catoutthebag wrote: »

End of December was the date.

That isn't a date and doesn't help. This is important otherwise I wouldn't ask. In order for the scammers to transfer liability to the keeper, they have to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA). Part of the requirement is to send out a NTK within a certain timeframe. We need to know whether or not they have done that, hence my question.

catoutthebag

Fruitcake wrote: »

That isn't a date and doesn't help. This is important otherwise I wouldn't ask. In order for the scammers to transfer liability to the keeper, they have to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA). Part of the requirement is to send out a NTK within a certain timeframe. We need to know whether or not they have done that, hence my question.

Ok, I need to double check when I get home, but think it was 27/12/16, but definitely 20-something

The_Deep

PPCs are using the Beavis decision willy nilly. In most cases the circumstances are different, P&D, signs, contracts, penalty, etc., commercial interest, etc,, etc.

Because BB lost, does not mean that everyone else loses. In fact, most properly contested "own space" cases are thrown as, as are many faulty machine, fluttering ticket, bye-laws land, and double dipping cases.