Ace Security Charge Notice

KeithP

Untergang wrote: »

So confuse and muddy the waters and then take advantage to rob people, is this worth addressing in my initial appeal?

No .

Untergang

KeithP wrote: »

No .

Ha ... No I wouldn't have said that just address the fact that I did in fact have a visitor permit and was parked in a visitor bay when no new permits had been issued...

Still not a good idea?

Coupon-mad

Untergang wrote: »

Ha ... No I wouldn't have said that just address the fact that I did in fact have a visitor permit and was parked in a visitor bay when no new permits had been issued...

Still not a good idea?

Eeek, not when the rest of your appeal says this:

There will be no admissions as to who was driving

No blabbing about the driver! :eek:

Untergang

Thank you C-M yes that makes sense

Untergang

Ok so initial appeal directly to ACE was sent over the weekend via email, received this reply this morning.

Dear xxxx xxxx

Thank you for your e-mail, unfortunately as this stage we can only accept an appeal from the driver who parked the vehicle prior to the Charge Notice being issued, as the responsibility lies with them as they entered in to the contract for parking, and they must appeal within 28 days otherwise they will lose the right to appeal.

The registered Keeper can only appeal after 28 days of the Charge Notice being issued and a Notice to Keeper being sent out and received. As you have contacted us regarding this Charge Notice, you are already aware of it and therefore you would lose the right to appeal after the 28 days from when the Charge Notice was issued.

Therefore we would politely suggest that the driver appeals to us regarding this Charge Notice. As previously stated, if the driver does not identify themselves within 28 days of the Charge Notice being issued the right to appeal will be lost.

Yours Sincerely,

Appeals Department
Ace Security Services


Not quite as cut and dried as I had hoped, do I now wait for the solicitors letter ...?

Thanks in advance for any insight.

Untergang

Hello All,
Ok back into the fray, so as post above Ace have declined to accept my appeal as I did not name the driver... I am assuming that giving them the drivers name will not then allow my appeal to be considered and upheld... that this is simply a tactic to get me to name the driver and they will press on regardless.

A few questions as below:

1: If they will not consider my initial appeal can I still appeal via the IPC (even if this is a kangaroo court)?

2: If I receive a claim letter from their solicitors (probably Gladstones), will they send this to me ...or to the registered keeper, being mindful that I do not want the driver to receive anything that may cause them any stress?

3: I sent a VAT mechanics receipt and photos showing zig zag lines on the main road the only option being for the driver to pull off the road. Would a judge in the county court dismiss this or does Ace have the right to penalise me where I have proof of mechanical failure?

Sorry if I am a bit rubbish at this, I do appreciate the good info already supplied.

Untergang

Further developments:

Ok the tenant of the tenant of the property visited had in fact supplied the driver with a visitors parking permit from the previous PPC which was on display in the vehicle.

She also found a letter from the property management company dated middle of August which stated:

'I am writing to advise that ACE Security is now the new parking control enforcement for the xxxx xxx development. We have agreed for a grace period to be extended till the 1st September 2018 for all residents to ease into the transition.'

Additionally the letter 'apologises for the six properties that did not receive their permits initially' and adds 'your permits will be enclosed in this letter' which they were not.

As the vehicle received the Parking Charge on 1st September and the ambiguous use if till rather than until and that the tenant has still not received any Ace Security permits is it worth me going back to Ace with the photographic proof of the letter and the PC and see what they say?

Thanks

Untergang

So got the below from the estate management company yesterday

On this occasion as a gesture of goodwill I have spoken with Ace Security and had the ticket rescinded. I would kindly request this information is not shared with other members of the development as I am not in a position to be able to have tickets cancelled without incurring additional expenses.
Kind regards
xxxxx

This was after sending the below cribbed from Parking Prankster and the latter part from LBC to MC Hairray on scribd.

Dear xxxx
There are many residential situations where some form of parking management is desired, some of these companies however leave a lot to be desired.
These companies, such as ACE Security have no desire to implement proper parking management and only want to introduce schemes which are hard to use and which allow them to issue as many parking charges to residents as possible.
Typical tactics are a feeding frenzy of ticket issuing on day one of the contract, refusal to issue multiple permits, failure to reissue new permits on expiry of old tickets, reliance on paper permits, and refusal to cancel charges when a mistake has been made by them.
The reason why management companies introduce most of these schemes is to deter non-residents from using residents' parking spaces. The reality is that most charges are issued to residents.
Ms xxxxx has at this point still not been issued with any new permits by Remus or by Ace, therefore her primacy of contract in her lease which affords her, her household and visitors the right to park cannot be breached by a third party i.e. Ace Security.
Please be aware that should this ‘parking charge’ not be cancelled forthwith I will add Remus as a party to any proceedings which Ace Security trading as Pace may bring against me, and that I will make a claim against Remus within those proceedings (or by way of a separate claim) for damages in respect of breach of contract.
Yours faithfully,
Xxxxxx