Pay and Display was paid and displayed. Parking Charge Notice issued from UKCPS anyway.

Confused_User

Hi All, having read the Newbies sticky, I cannot locate anything regarding this exact case.
I know you say that they are all the same on the face of it, but this one is really confusing me.
N.B. This is NOT a thread about DRP, they have sent a letter but I believe we are supposed to ignore them?

The specifics:

Parking was paid and displayed in a UKCPS car park on 05/09/18, there was no overstay; we later find out PCN was issued 20 minutes after ticket was bought.
On 10/10/18 UKCPS send a letter stating that "28 days have lapsed since we last wrote to you", but this was the first contact received. They asked for £100 here.
There was no little yellow packet put on the car on the day, no Notice to Keeper, or Notice to Driver issued, this is the first contact received and the first time we learn there is an issue.
A letter was written back to them explaining parking was paid, and a scanned copy of the receipt included.
They replied with a copy and paste letter saying that since we've missed the 21 day time frame to appeal the charge will stand.
Obviously as the first contact was received just over 5 weeks later there was no way to even know there was a 21 day appeal window.
They appear to be immediately on the defensive about "the legality of parking on private land", and ignore the evidence that was sent in.
A letter was written to them again explaining the above and we thought that was the end of it, until 2 days ago when we received a letter from DRP asking for £160.
Called UKCPS asking why it has gone this far, have they not received the letters etc., agent on phone tells me they have nothing on the case file, it's with DRP now, he can't do anything as it is with them.

As far as I have learned about these companies they appear to just be scam artists who pressure people into paying inflated 'charges', not fines, by threatening them with court if they don't pay up.

We don't intend to give them a penny as parking was already paid for.

The question is, has anyone come across a case like this before and if we ignore them and they take it to court, do they actually have any power here?

Thanks

KeithP

Confused_User, the very first thing you need to do now, before anything else, is to delete the sentence immediately following the words The specifics: in your post.

You tell us that you have read the NEWBIES sticky.
Did you see anything in there about never revealing the driver's identity?

Confused_User

Thanks, edited.

I didn't think what I had written counted as revealing their identity. Included only to give a rounded idea of the case for anyone reading.

KeithP

Confused_User wrote: »

I didn't think what I had written counted as revealing their identity. Included only to give a rounded idea of the case for anyone reading.

The parking companies trawl this forum just waiting for people to trip themselves up.

If from subsequent posts they can identify your incident, then they would've been able to identify the driver at the time.

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.