Standard Internet Templates for PCNs no longer working?

Leeds_2087

I received a PCN for staying longer in an EMPTY Tesco Express car park in Leeds despite being sat in my car on the phone after shopping at that location. I was contacted by a letter from Smart parking Ltd which I ignored as instructed) and was then sent a Demand for payment letter by Debt Recovery Plus Limited "on behalf of their creditor". To this I responded with the IPC template from the website and only naming myself as the driver and asking them the questions (who is other party, supporting photos etc as laid out in the template.

To make this even worse I applied for a new job that is privy to credit checks and security clearance, could this now affect my employability?!?

I received an email today that told me the below:

Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

What you need to do now

So I can contact the driver for payment of the amount due, please let me know their name and address. Please let me have these details by 04/08/2017.

What if you do not know who the driver of the vehicle was

As you are the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am assuming that it was being driven with your consent and that you will therefore know who the driver was.

If you do not provide details of the driver by the date shown above, we will continue to contact you for payment of the parking charge on the assumption that as the registered keeper you were also the driver of the vehicle (as established in Elliott v Loake [1982]).

Alternatively, payment of the £140.00 outstanding can be made online or by phone. Go to or phone 0208 234 6775. You can find full details of how to pay on the reverse of the letter(s) sent.

What will happen if you do not name the driver of the vehicle or make payment

If you do not name the driver or the amount outstanding is not paid by the date shown above, it will be recommended to our client that court action be taken by them to recover the amount outstanding.

I must also stress that simply sending in standard template responses, most likely obtained from the internet, will not resolve the matter. In addition, I would recommend that professional legal advice be sought on this matter as an alternative.

The claim in question is based in contract law. When the driver parked the vehicle on the site in question, he/she contractually agreed to abide by the terms and conditions attached to that site. As stated, these terms and conditions are adequately displayed on signage at the site. If he/she did not wish to abide by these terms and conditions, they were under no obligation to park on the property in question.

I draw your attention to the decision made by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015]. The Supreme Court ruled that the charge appealed did not contravene the penalty rule or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and was therefore enforceable.

The charge in that case was ruled not to be a penalty as both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging motorists who contravene parking restrictions, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of parking. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to the practices around the United Kingdom and taking into account the use of the particular car park and the clear wording of the signs.


I must stress that, under the British Parking Association’s code of practice, I am under no obligation to provide such evidence. Therefore, this is provided merely as a gesture of goodwill.

The signage on site is sufficient and is in line with the guidelines laid down by the British Parking Association (BPA).

The majority of motorists who park at the site do so without receiving a PCN. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that they are aware of the terms and conditions of the site. If, as you claim, the signage was inadequate, the terms and conditions of the site would be unknown to the majority of drivers and many more PCNs would be issued here.

We note that you have contacted us concerning your liability for this parking charge. A debt can only be denied if the ‘customer disputes the debt on valid grounds’. Where keeper liability has been established under the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 then we are proceeding on this basis. For charges issues outside of this Act, or if the parking charge was issued outside of England or Wales, we are pursuing the driver on the basis of Elliott v Loake [1982].

The following information confirms the relevant details of the debt:

Our Reference: XYZ
Parking Operator Reference: XYZ
Vehicle Registration:
Parking Charge date: 01/05/2017
Location: LEEDS
Reason for Issue: Over Free Time
Creditor: Smart Parking Ltd
The current amount outstanding is £140.00. This has been calculated as per the terms and conditions displayed on signage when the vehicle was parked in a manner where the driver attracted a parking charge as brought to the driver's attention via signage and agreed to by the driver when the vehicle was parked on private land managed by our client.

By responding, I do not intend to enter in to any form of contract, I am simply corresponding in order to pursue the charge which our company has been instructed to collect. I would also draw your attention to the following case where such a claim was rejected in court:

More information

Under the Pre-Action Protocol of the Civil Procedural Rules, court action must only be viewed as a last resort. By requesting the driver’s details we are attempting to avoid this outcome.

Telephone Payment: Ring 0208 234 6775

Bank Transfer: Quote your reference number to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, Royal Bank Of Scotland, Sort Code 16-00-01, Account Number 20891316

Cheques/Postal Orders: Should be posted to the address below, made payable to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd. Please write your reference number on the back.

Kind Regards

Coupon-mad

I was contacted by a letter from Smart parking Ltd which I ignored as instructed(??) and was then sent a Demand for payment letter by Debt Recovery Plus Limited "on behalf of their creditor". To this I responded with the IPC template

Smart are a BPA firm. Why did you not appeal at the time, and win, as instructed?

You ignored a postal PCN (i.e. the Notice to Keeper) which is not the advice instructed for either IPC or BPA firms.

You then replied (pointlessly) to a laughable threatogram from Debt Recovery Plus, so of course you have received their standard template reply. Our advice about them is in the NEWBIES thread post #4 and in this thread, constantly bumped to page one every week to stop people from taking the likes of DRP seriously:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

Of course the IPC appeal didn't ''work'' when sent too late to a useless third-party call-centre 'debt collector' who had churned out their usual drivel template letter chain, about a BPA firm's fake PCN. You are past appeal stage (you missed it). You are at DRP stage, so the above linked thread and post #4 of the NEWBIES thread is where you have landed, due to not appealing online straight away with the BPA appeal, over a month ago, to Smart.

Come back if Smart try a small claim (post #2 of the NEWBIES thread). DRP can't litigate, so laugh at them (post #4 of the sticky).

Redx

you did all that completely wrong

read the NEWBIES sticky thread

first task was not to ignore it , it was to appeal it

second task was to use the blue text BPA template because not so SMART are BPA members , not IPC

now its in debt collector land , so you IGNORE those , as post #4 tells you

if you get any more , follow the advice in that NEWBIES sticky thread

beamerguy

More drivel from the time wasting DRP

Shows how stupid they are talking about Beavis.
That was a case of Mr Beavis claiming unfair charges

They have said to you
"the vehicle was parked in a manner where the driver attracted a parking charge"

What is that got to do with Beavis ??:rotfl:

They don't like internet forums ????
Of course they don't because everyone says ... IGNORE DRP

DON'T CONTACT THIS LOW LIFE, DON'T PAY THEM .... IGNORE

System

The irony of a template telling people not to use templates.

beamerguy

IamEmanresu wrote: »

The irony of a template telling people not to use templates.

YUP .... Template DRP STRIKES AGAIN