Parking Fine in Edinburgh

Essex_Jim

Fruitcake said:

Whilst it is blurry, your PCN number is showing.

Thanks. Updated now

Coupon-mad

Hmmmmm...

Look plain to me that IMHO, that letter will have come from CIS (not the parking firm).  You can tell, due to the supposed sender telling you not to contact them (course not, because they didn't send that letter).

CIS have been told by both the BPA and IPC to stop using the word 'summons'.

Send a complaint to Sara Roberts at the BPA pointing out that CIS are still using the banned word 'summons' despite being told by both Trade Bodies to stop.  They are also misleading the recipient who lives in Scotland, that they can take him to the County Court and that the 'pre-action protocol' applies (which it doesn't in Scotland) and they are pretending that the letter comes from the operator, which it obviously doesn't.

None of this is acceptable conduct.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Complain to the BPA that CIS are still threatening to issue summonses; something Steve Clark at the BPA was investigating last year.  This is misleading crap to consumers that needs to stop.  Neither the English nor the Scottish system allows for 72 hours 'pay up or else' threats.

Complain to the new Head of AOS at the BPA, Sara Roberts:

sara.r@britishparking.co.uk

Remind her that TNC and CIS were meant to be adopting fairer letters many months ago.

The expert on Scottish cases is @Old_Slobberchops

As I told you in May...if you've already started the BPA Complaint then show Sara this new letter and add what we said.

Jenni_D

Coupon-mad said:

Hmmmmm...

Look plain to me that IMHO, that letter will have come from CIS (not the parking firm).  You can tell, due to the supposed sender telling you not to contact them (course not, because they didn't send that letter).

CIS have been told by both the BPA and IPC to stop using the word 'summons'.

Send a complaint to Sara Roberts at the BPA pointing out that CIS are still using the banned word 'summons' despite being told by both Trade Bodies to stop.  They are also misleading the recipient who lives in Scotland, that they can take him to the County Court and that the 'pre-action protocol' applies (which it doesn't in Scotland) and they are pretending that the letter comes from the operator, which it obviously doesn't.

None of this is acceptable conduct.

Remind me - does the OP actually live in Scotland? Or was it simply that the event was in Scotland?

Edit: just re-read the OP ... the event was in Scotland, by a driver living in Scotland, but the keeper OP lives in England.

Coupon-mad

Ah OK.  Point still stands about use of the word 'summons' in both their letters. 100% needs a complaint to the BPA as Steve Clark already sorted this with CIS when I complained to him last year.

Essex_Jim

Thanks again for the updates. 

I will get the information passed on to Sara and will keep you updated.

Essex_Jim

Just received the following reply from Sara....

Thank you for your email.  I have opened a case referenced above.

I am sorry to hear you have experienced difficulties with P4 Parking (UK) Ltd and Unity Services t/a CIS (Credit Investigation Services).

I can confirm that they are both members of our Approved Operator Scheme which means that they are required to adhere to our Code of Practice.

Our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of our Code of Practice by members of our Approved Operator Scheme where evidence can be supplied and we are unable to become involved in individual ticket disputes or hear appeals.

I will now approach Unity Services t/a CIS (Credit Investigation Services) to ask them to look into, comment and provide evidence on your case and will update you accordingly once I hear back from them.

I hope this is helpful.

Essex_Jim

Follow up to previous letter from Sara

Thank you for your patience while I contacted Unity Services t/a CIS (Credit Investigation Services)  for further information.

It might be helpful if I begin by explaining that our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of the Code of Practice by members of our Approved Operator Scheme. Please appreciate that our remit does not extend to compelling operators to cancel charges or becoming involved in the appeals process.

We have been in touch with Unity Services t/a CIS (Credit Investigation Services).  I can confirm that Unity Services t/a CIS (Credit Investigation Services) updated their  letters in relation to parking charge notices in May 2022 and we are content that they are now compliant with the requirements of our Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.  These revised letters went live on their systems during May and it would appear that the letter you received on the 7th of May had not yet been updated.   The letters now being issued by Unity Services t/a CIS (Credit Investigation Services) no longer refer to the issuing of summons.

 

In terms of when that letter dated 07.05.2022 was received Unity Services t/a CIS (Credit Investigation Services) have confirmed that the letter was sent as dated.  Please be advised that we are unable to investigate postal delays and you may wish to address this with the Royal Mail.  

 

Unity Services t/a CIS (Credit Investigation Services) have arranged for this Parking Charge Notice to be cancelled as a gesture of goodwill.

As the operator has responded accordingly, this case is now closed. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and assisting us to raise standards within the private parking sector.

I hope the above is helpful.    

Umkomaas

Unity Services t/a CIS (Credit Investigation Services) have arranged for this Parking Charge Notice to be cancelled as a gesture of goodwill.

Yeh, right. Caught out, nothing to do with 'goodwill'. There's none of that among the worst in the private parking sector (and that's being kind!). 

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and assisting us to raise standards within the private parking sector.

Having members of the public, yet again, to point out stuff the BPA should have been on to months and months ago (and followed through until resolved) when this was raised with Steve Clark, yet has allowed it to continue, gives absolutely no confidence that there is any real attempt to 'raise standards'. Because raising standards lowers PPC income!