Not sure what to do.

Dumbdriver1

Received Notice to Keeper for apparent PCN from AS Parking, I didn't have initial Window ticket for whatever reason so first to hear of it is today 42 days after apparent PCN issued. PCN issued 14mins after ticket expired although their charges are confusing

I have appealed a fine from a different company some time ago and they cancelled the fine. OK no problem but this time as I didnt have the ticket it was different. I First sent the old standard email
" I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.
I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.
Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation and you have omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.
I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply."

To which they replied...
"1. The timescale for submitting an appeal has elapsed, as appeals must be submitted within 21 days of issue; therefore your submission has not been handled as a formal appeal.
2. If you were not the driver, you may complete the driver identification form on your Notice to Keeper.
3. The template fails for this PCN as the signage exceeds the requirements to pass the ‘test’ that you have referred to.
4. The contract is between the driver and ourselves, the landowner has no capacity to intervene; as they are a third party.
5. Our cancellation policy is simply that if the PCN was issued in error, we will cancel the charge; if it was issued correctly we will not.
6. The template fails you for this PCN by quoting my POPLA, as POPLA have no jurisdiction here."

So I reffered back to Newbies and realised I should have sent
"I appeal and dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established inParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.
Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require with your rejection letter, all images taken of this vehicle & the signs at the location that day. Do not withhold any images or data later relied on for POPLA/court.
Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised too; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and say on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).
I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''"

But now they have replied basically saying dont send these emails we wont help you or give you a popla code unless you tell us who the driver was and we have to provide proof of identity.

"Thank you for your further MSE template.

Please refer to our previous response.
With respect, we have no wish to enter into an exchange of multiple non-productive emails; particularly where the templates used bear zero relevance to the matter in hand (a PCN for a circa 15 minute overstay is far from predatory or rogue conduct).
Therefore, no further correspondence will be addressed or responded to other than payment or a completed driver identification form.
Aside from the above, if you wish to submit a subject access request; it will be necessary for you to provide proof of your identity with said submission""

So now I'm really confused. happy to read previous threads but finding it difficult to locate anything specific.

KeithP

Dumbdriver1 wrote: »

But now they have replied basically saying dont send these emails we wont help you or give you a popla code unless you tell us who the driver was and we have to provide proof of identity.

Is that really a good summary?

Or did they perhaps say something like:

We must therefore request that the details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention are supplied; this must include their full name and serviceable UK postal address. If you are unwilling or unable to provide these details the registered keeper of this vehicle will remain liable for this PCN. This information should be provided by XXXX Please note, we will not reply to any correspondence until after the above date, if the requested information is not provided.

If we do not receive this information by the date given, the registered keeper of the vehicle at the date of event will be held liable.

Dumbdriver1

No their response is the blue responce

Their original reply - 6. The template fails you for this PCN by quoting my POPLA, as POPLA have no jurisdiction here."

Their second reply -
"With respect, we have no wish to enter into an exchange of multiple non-productive emails; particularly where the templates used bear zero relevance to the matter in hand (a PCN for a circa 15 minute overstay is far from predatory or rogue conduct).
Therefore, no further correspondence will be addressed or responded to other than payment or a completed driver identification form."

They have basically said pay, or tell us who was driving we will not engage in this corrispondance.

I have drafted a responce reconfirming what I have already said but I am unsure whether to send it, I am confused what I should do now as they wont give me proof (maybe they don't have it) I'm not sure how I can even appeal or how I would appeal without a code or if there is even any point wether I should just wait for it to go to court and say they refused to provide evidence of their claim in advance as we requested.

KeithP

AS Parking are AOS members of the IPC, so, as they say, PoPLA is not relevant.

All you can do now is prepare yourself for debt collectors' letters.

Post again if you get a Letter of Claim or official court correspondence.

Dumbdriver1

A S Parking Management & Enforcement Services, they appear on the IPC website and they have the logo stating as such.

Quentin

As #4 above.

You ignore everything except court correspondence or a lbcca.

They have 6 years to start legal action against you

See #1 in the newbies FAQ thread for advice on why you ignore IPC companies after the inevitable rejection of the first appeal

Redx

correct , IPC member

so follow the advice in the NEWBIES FAQ thread for IPC members , which is

appeal to the ppc with the template

IGNORE any further letters except for

an LBC

and/or an MCOL within 6 years

as stated earlier, popla was never on offer and there are no "further steps"

Dumbdriver1

Great thanks for the help.

Guys_Dad

Was this an ANPR or other camera PCN? Important. Or are they claiming to have left a windscreen ticket?

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Dumbdriver1

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Was this an ANPR or other camera PCN? Important. Or are they claiming to have left a windscreen ticket?

It was a parking ticket they claim to have left but we did not have it for whatever reason.