QDR solicitors

GT1965

I have been contacted by QDR solicitors chasing payment on parking fines issued by  APCOA . These 3 fines relate to me taking my son around an empty train station car park during lockdown for driving lessons approx 40 mins each time , at no point did we park we just made use of an empty car park , unaware that an offence was being committed. Once i received the 1st PCN i stopped. These fines relate to offences back in March/April 2020 . Do i have any legal grounds on which to challenge these claims as i was just using an empty carpark .My appeals were rejected by POPLA and then passed onto ZZPS and now QDR .The fine is obviously going up and the letters more intimidating .What is my best response ? I feel pushed into just paying the increased fine but feel its morally wrong . Any advice greatly appreciated

Le_Kirk

Did you receive the original PCNs?  If so, did you respond to them by either complaining to the landowner/retail establishment or appealing?  If not, why not?

Redx

So you admitted that you were Trespassing on private property to Apcoa and to Popla ??

You had no legal reason to be there !! You were probably breaking railway bylaws

Ignore zzps and qdr , but do email a SAR to the DPO at Apcoa attaching your V5C as proof of I D under the GDPR law to obtain all your data

If apcoa do issue a court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton within 6 years , you would have to defend yourself in court , but personally I would not be paying debt collectors

Umkomaas

Long gone are the days when you could teach your offspring to drive in an empty supermarket (or other large) car park. What were you thinking about?

You can of course continue to do so, but it's £100 a pop (or £60 if you pay quickly).  Take a financial view on it!

Fruitcake

The fourth post of the NEWBIES explains why it is safe to ignore powerless debt collectors.


CRAPCOA are easy to beat as long as the driver's identity is never revealed.

If the site is a railway asset covered by railway byelaws then the keeper cannot be held liable, but the driver can be liable, and the owner may be liable. 

So, was the driver's identity revealed to the scammers in the initial appeal or to PoPLA?