UPDATE 29/01 I need some help with a parking fine from myparkingcharge.co.uk for a hired vehicle

ireallycantyodel

Right.I haven't had much of an opportunity to deal with this lately. As you know my appeal got rejected and I did not appeal to their "independent" appeals service.

I have not been well for a few weeks. As expected, they now sent me a letter with a new charge which has jumped up to £ 160 (ah well...they don't even try to be subtle - the last letter said it would go to £100 but they didn't bother sending a letter in between).



Every time I look at that letter it makes my blood boil. They even had the audacity to quote the Beavis case to let me know that I should tow the line.

Here is my concern - Hubby found the letter (he knew about the fine). He is the kind of person who is hugely popular with companies like that as he tries to avoid conflict. He also feels I shouldn't stress myself out with court proceedings since I've not been well and he is worried that they just increase in increments of £60 and only take it to court once it has risen to a substantial amount.

I am not sure what to do. He said he would pay it but I don't think that's fair and in effect, we have all our money in one pot so technically we are both paying it anyway. If it goes any higher and then it goes to court I think I have to cancel my next holiday..because there won't be any savings left.

I also don't think that paying these greedy vultures is going to help the cause of going against these rogue firms.My husband even called them but they wouldn't talk to him (oh they care about data protection low and behold)

Also, I still want to challenge Europecar which I can't if I pay them. I feel really stuck now and I have to make a decision soon.

My first appeal in itself should have been enough as they didn't stick to deadlines. And I am not sure if that is enough to win in court. But then you guys said I have to decide a line of defence and I am not sure which one would be the safest one anyway - the fact that they didn't follow deadlines or the fact that (in my view) it wasn't clear that nobody could park there. They now sprayed on the floor (which is very faint) that you should not park there.. That could be viewed as an admission that signage was insufficient maybe?

Should I send them another email? I refuse to pay £160 - maybe if it was still £60 I would do it for peace sake in our house but not at £ 160.

And yes, I told him off for reading my letters..lol

Coupon-mad

he is worried that they just increase in increments of £60 and only take it to court once it has risen to a substantial amount.

He is WRONG and NO-ONE should pay a three figure sum for a PPC scam charge unless a Judge says so.

Tell him:

We win 99% of cases.

There is NO CCJ risk (unless you move house and don't tell them. Don't do that).

Even if someone loses a small claim, it's £100 for the PCN plus court fees of fifty quid!

Yep, LESS THAN THAT LETTER WANTS...!

Can I also say, with respect to him too, you would both be bonkers to pay £160, to avoid the 1% minuscule chance of being sued, losing, and having to pay LESS. I hope he understands why I say that! No risk at all, nothing bad happens and no huge costs. No £60 increments.

As I said ages ago:

Stop stressing over the 'rules' about appeal. Excel/VCS will turn it down anyway, but later (given our track record) you are 99% likely to win when/if they try a small claim.

MothballsWallet

Also, OP, the £60 that they added on in the letter is BS - it's a debt collection charge that doesn't apply as most of these cowboy PPCs use "no win, no fee" agreements with their debt collector "friends".

I use friends in quotes as I mean, who would want to be friends with a PPC or DCA, really?

ireallycantyodel

Coupon-mad wrote: »

He is WRONG and NO-ONE should pay a three figure sum for a PPC scam charge unless a Judge says so.

Tell him:

We win 99% of cases.

There is NO CCJ risk (unless you move house and don't tell them. Don't do that).

Even if someone loses a small claim, it's £100 for the PCN plus court fees of fifty quid!

Yep, LESS THAN THAT LETTER WANTS...!

Can I also say, with respect to him too, you would both be bonkers to pay £160, to avoid the 1% minuscule chance of being sued, losing, and having to pay LESS. I hope he understands why I say that! No risk at all, nothing bad happens and no huge costs. No £60 increments.

As I said ages ago:

Are you saying they are only allowed to claim for £100 in court not for their fees?

The question remains which course of defence I should choose - someone indicated that I can't use it all? Is that right?

So let's say I go with the defence outlined in my first appeal (where I chose not to admit to the offence but where I pointed out that they have to prove that I was the driver and besides, they didn't follow proper procedure when sending me letters re deadline and enclosing a copy of the hire agreement) does that mean I can't also go down the line of defence that I personally feel that that it wasn't clear that someone couldn't park there? After all the picture just shows my car and not all the other cars standing next to me which was the case when I parked there.

Coupon-mad

ireallycantyodel wrote: »

Are you saying they are only allowed to claim for £100 in court not for their fees?

Yes. We do these every week, all the time.

It's the small claims track - meant for the ordinary person to resolve disputes. No huge costs or fees can apply, just fifty quid court fees if you were one of the tiny number here who lose. Then you'd pay (£150-odd, maybe a few quid interest - a sum not much different than they are demanding now) within 30 days of the Judge saying so, and it would not leave any smudge on your credit rating.

The question remains which course of defence I should choose - someone indicated that I can't use it all? Is that right?

So let's say I go with the defence outlined in my first appeal (where I chose not to admit to the offence but where I pointed out that they have to prove that I was the driver and besides, they didn't follow proper procedure when sending me letters re deadline and enclosing a copy of the hire agreement) does that mean I can't also go down the line of defence that I personally feel that that it wasn't clear that someone couldn't park there? After all the picture just shows my car and not all the other cars standing next to me which was the case when I parked there.

The Defendant (you, not OH?) would use all possible relevant lines of defence, like you see in every defence case here.

To see how 'stressful' defending a claim might be, why not read a few winning threads? Search for these keywords and read people's experiences at hearing and the defence/Witness Statement build up to it:

another one bites the dust

Show your OH this thread, and those you find when you search, that ordinary people here win, and win again.

Odd cases lost are not expensive for the losing Defendant and if they do their homework well, they at least succeed in having the attempted added £60 struck out.

ireallycantyodel

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes. We do these every week, all the time.

It's the small claims track - meant for the ordinary person to resolve disputes. No huge costs or fees can apply, just fifty quid court fees if you were one of the tiny number here who lose. Then you'd pay (£150-odd, maybe a few quid interest - a sum not much different than they are demanding now) within 30 days of the Judge saying so, and it would not leave any smudge on your credit rating.


The Defendant (you, not OH?) would use all possible relevant lines of defence, like you see in every defence case here.

To see how 'stressful' defending a claim might be, why not read a few winning threads? Search for these keywords and read people's experiences at hearing and the defence/Witness Statement build up to it:

another one bites the dust

Show your OH this thread, and those you find when you search, that ordinary people here win, and win again.

Odd cases lost are not expensive for the losing Defendant and if they do their homework well, they at least succeed in having the attempted added £60 struck out.

Thank you I have read some of these - very useful - I came across one from last November and it puzzled me. So far I have not admitted that I was the driver (given the fact that the hire agreement, which they did not attach, states that I was the only person on that agreement they might have come to the conclusion themselves).

So my POFA line of defence might not work here as this is only for keepers as far as I understand? Which also includes the line about the £60 charge...

I am a bit confused. If (and only if) the court acknowledges that they cannot proof that I was the driver, bringing up a defence about why their parking signage was insufficient might just expose me as the driver? Wouldn't it?

Hence my earlier questions about which line of defence I should use or if I would be safe to use both. My first appeal was mainly based on POFA. If they feel that the hire agreement already proves that I was the driver then I might have a bit of an issue..lol

(here is the reference thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5925911/day-at-court&page=3#topofpage )

ireallycantyodel

ireallycantyodel wrote: »

Thank you I have read some of these - very useful - I came across one from last November and it puzzled me. So far I have not admitted that I was the driver (given the fact that the hire agreement, which they did not attach, states that I was the only person on that agreement they might have come to the conclusion themselves).

So my POFA line of defence might not work here as this is only for keepers as far as I understand? Which also includes the line about the £60 charge...

I am a bit confused. If (and only if) the court acknowledges that they cannot proof that I was the driver, bringing up a defence about why their parking signage was insufficient might just expose me as the driver? Wouldn't it?

Hence my earlier questions about which line of defence I should use or if I would be safe to use both. My first appeal was mainly based on POFA. If they feel that the hire agreement already proves that I was the driver then I might have a bit of an issue..lol

(here is the reference thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5925911/day-at-court&page=3#topofpage )

Just bumping this as this is a really important question for my husband to put his mind at rest - if (due to it being a hire agreement and me being the only one named on this agreement) I am not protected by POFA, would the £60 fee still be slapped on and would I have to choose a different line of defence (rather than the "You can't prove that I was the driver)?

D_P_Dance

You can't prove that I was the driver)

Indeed they cannot, even if you were the only driver named on the agreement
that does not mean you must therefore have been the driver. Why would they have access to the hire agreement?

Coupon-mad

due to it being a hire agreement and me being the only one named on this agreement) I am not protected by POFA,

I disagree.

The primary name on a hirer agreement DOES NOT necessarily mean only that person can drive. AND, the PPC never served the documents with the NTH so failed to transfer liability to you anyway.

would the £60 fee still be slapped on

No, there is no £60 'fee' and it is not connected to the POFA.

The £60 they add is made up out of thin air and they pretend it is for costs for debt collection, but they can't add those because they were never in fact incurred; it's a standard lie. And the 2015 ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case, (although Barry Beavis lost) confirmed that the parking charge is already hugely inflated for profit, and that the costs of a standard template letters parking regime are minimal.

Thus, even if they sent you more 'chasing' letters than some other victims/idiots who pay, the letters are all part of a TINY outlay (scam) business model, where the majority of the PCN sum is pure profit. Extra costs were not claimed in Beavis and the Supreme Court remarked that a parking firm cannot plead a case in 'damages' because they make no loss and are not in possession.

Think about it, since the parking charge is, say 80% profit, over & above the costs of their business model, they can't then add £60 for fake 'costs' of that business model!

AND the POFA says the only sum claimable is the sum on the NTK/NTH, so that is the cherry on the top, to argue in court. Even in a case where the driver is known (if the Judge decides the driver is known) the POFA is still a useful statute to use as a measure of the intentions of Parliament re what is and isn't recoverable, in a case of parking on private land.

PPC scammers always try to add £60, and they do that because they get away with it, from people who panic and pay the whole lot like numpties, or from people who fail to argue properly that it's a made up pile of crap, and fail to expose the £60 as an unrecoverable attempt at double recovery, at the hearing.

Why are you still so worried, when you now know we win 99% of cases, and you risk nothing at all by defending?