***Help a Canadian visitor with a PPT please!***

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

If easirent want £55 for dealing with a minor administrative matter such as this, then, i.m.o. they are ripping off the customer, and this may fall to be considered as an unfair term in a consumer contract.

I am sure their trade association would not condone such an excessive amount.

In the OP's position I'd be leaving some pretty damning feedback on any review site pertaining to Easirent, to advise potential customers that they risk significant admin penalty. £55 is quite possibly the highest such charge of any UK car hire company.

This is almost of bank charges scandal proportion.

juxepe

Umkomaas wrote: »

In the OP's position I'd be leaving some pretty damning feedback on any review site pertaining to Easirent, to advise potential customers that they risk significant admin penalty. £55 is quite possibly the highest such charge of any UK car hire company.

This is almost of bank charges scandal proportion.

To add insult to injury if you ever get into an accident/damage the car, not only will they claim from your excess (GBP 1250, and they like to claim all of it for damages that aren't worth 1250!), but also slap a 50 pound admin fee on top.

juxepe

They've finally responded to the appeal:

'We have carefully considered your appeal but on this occasion, I am writing to inform you that it has been unsuccessful as a breach of the terms and conditions of parking occurred. The decision has been made on the basis of:

1 - The permit that was displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle did not correspond to the parking bay. All permits have the bay allocation printed on them and can only be used in the corresponding bay. Vehicles parked in a bay with an incorrect permit will be deemed as invalid.

2 - Signage clearly states "PERMITS MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED IN WINDSCREEN AT ALL TIMES".

3 - The photographic evidence collected at the time of the contravention supports the above statement.

4 - It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the parking restrictions are fully adhered to. The signage is clear within the area and states the terms for parking. If you were unsure then you should have refrained from parking or contacted CPM for further advice. The control centre's telephone number is located on all signage.

5 - Parking in someone else's allocated space can cause them a great deal of inconvenience and for this reason CPM will continue to actively monitor the car park to ensure residents can gain access and have exclusive rights to their parking bays.'

The rest of it talks about paying within 14 days otherwise I'll have to pay the full charge etc etc.

The attached photographic evidence does clearly show my parking sticker on the windscreen, so I'm not sure what's their 2nd point about.

Regarding their 1st point, the residence sticker I was using did not have an allocated parking bay written on it, just says Residence Permit. How am I supposed to know it's not valid? They say I should have called - their number isn't 24/7! I parked late at night, who was I supposed to ask?

I guess next step is to appeal with IAS. Let's see how that goes!

System

I guess next step is to appeal with IAS. Let's see how that goes!

We all know. Don't you.

The_Slithy_Tove

juxepe wrote: »

They've finally responded to the appeal

Did they reply in writing to your Canadian address? Or was it by email? Even if the latter, have they acknowledged your address in some way, e.g. in their rejection "letter"?

juxepe wrote: »

I guess next step is to appeal with IAS. Let's see how that goes!

Surely you now do nothing. The whole point of the appeal was to divert them away from any dealings with the rental company, and the grief/unjustifiable costs they would chareg you, and nothing more. The success or otherwise of the appeal is irrelevant, as they can now do nothing about it. They cannot pursue you to court, which is the only thing that matters.

Redx

juxepe wrote: »

I guess next step is to appeal with IAS. Let's see how that goes!

not really

please read the advice in the NEWBIES sticky thread regarding IAS appeals (dont hand the PPC an easy win on a plate)

as long as EASIRENT are not involved, you have gone as far as you can , for now (and yes we know it doesnt seem fair, because it isnt)

a landholder cancellation was always your best option, its now your only option , or let this "time out" after 6 years

welcome to our world

Umkomaas

The main thing is that you've hooked them away from sending a NtK to Easirent. That was the only way they could have got their hands on your cash (via Easirent automatically paying them, then charging you).

You can ignore everything from here on, but get your brother to let you know what turns up. Should court papers be issued to you at your brother's address, come back so we can advise on a response to kill those.

juxepe

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Did they reply in writing to your Canadian address? Or was it by email? Even if the latter, have they acknowledged your address in some way, e.g. in their rejection "letter"?

It was sent to my brother's address in St Albans - he sent me a photo of the letter. And yes, they acknowledged the address in the rejection letter.

Though in the letter they've only acknowledged 1 PPT, I didn't get another letter for the 2nd one. In my appeal letter I clearly stated both PPT reference numbers and mentioned how I am appealing *both*.

juxepe

Umkomaas wrote: »

The main thing is that you've hooked them away from sending a NtK to Easirent. That was the only way they could have got their hands on your cash (via Easirent automatically paying them, then charging you).

You can ignore everything from here on, but get your brother to let you know what turns up. Should court papers be issued to you at your brother's address, come back so we can advise on a response to kill those.

Forgive me but I'm a bit confused here, I thought they could still do a DVLA search before 6 months pass, therefore I was to take them for a ride until the 6 months pass? If I ignore everything from here on would it not prompt them to do a DVLA search before the 6 month period passes?

Appreciate the help!

juxepe

Redx wrote: »

a landholder cancellation was always your best option, its now your only option , or let this "time out" after 6 years

welcome to our world

Thanks for the welcome

6 years or 6 months?