Recieved parking fine, but have proof I paid for it

kristml

Hi

I am hoping this is the correct place to post this. I recently recieved a fine for not paying for parking in a car park near me. Due to the incorrect address being on my V5 document the fine went to aprevious address. This has since been passed onto a debt collection agency - DCBL - who have contacted me with a £160 fine.

I have replied to them with proof of payment of the parking charge with a copy of my bank statement which clearlty shows the payment on, however they are not accepting this by telling me that the time to appeal this fine has passed and that I need to pay the £160 fine or face further action.

Where do I stand legally with this as I have proven that I paid and there fore this fine was issued in error and is there anything I can do to stop it or do i just have to pay the fine and accept it?

Thanks in advance for any advice, im sorry if i havn't explained my self particularly well but can provide more info if needed. To say I am annoyed would be an understatement!

Trainerman

It is not a fine, it is an invoice.

If it is DCB Ltd, then it is debt collection and not too much to worry about. However, you MUST update your V5 and email the PPC and tell them to update your address and erase any previous ones. If you do not do these, you are quite likely to get a stealth CCJ some time in the future. The scammers love old addresses !

You do not have to accept it and pay, and I most certainly would not. Even if it does go to court, I believe that there are lots of things on your side, including the new Government code of conduct.

You need to read the Newbies and understand where you are, what might happen and what to do

kristml

Trainerman said:

It is not a fine, it is an invoice.

If it is DCB Ltd, then it is debt collection and not too much to worry about. However, you MUST update your V5 and email the PPC and tell them to update your address and erase any previous ones. If you do not do these, you are quite likely to get a stealth CCJ some time in the future. The scammers love old addresses !

You do not have to accept it and pay, and I most certainly would not. Even if it does go to court, I believe that there are lots of things on your side, including the new Government code of conduct.

You need to read the Newbies and understand where you are, what might happen and what to do

Hi

Thanks for your reply I will check that out.

1505grandad

What is the full name of the parking company?

kristml

Bank Park. They are based in Sheffield but the car park in question is in the West Midlands. The debt collection company have since replied and said that even though I have provided proof of payment the fine still stands and I need to pay them to avoid further action. Part of me just wants to pay it to get rid of it but the other part of me wants to fight it and take it to court but I dont want to risk a CCJ or anything like that and the cost of legal advice could end up being the same as what I have to pay anyway.

Half_way

Woahh slow down.
It's not a fine.
You can not just get a ccj, lots needs to happen before that.
The legal advice fee is free .


Who's car park was it?
And by pay what do you mean you paid?
To who and how much?

D_P_Dance

It is not a fine, please read the newbies and complain to your MP.  Ignore debt collectors, they have no power whatsoever.

Trainerman

Hold on a minute. They admit that you have provided proof of payment, but that you should still pay their invoice (it is not a fine).The supposed 'breech' was non payment, you provide proof and nothing changes. Do you really want to be unjustly ripped off like that ???

Point 1) Most people do not need legal advice, this forum helps people to fight these scams.
Point2) There is an extra £70 in there which the new Government code bans, and should be straightforward to get removed.
Point 3) Even if you did lose, you would probably pay less AND as long as you paid within timescale you would not have a CCJ on your record. 

Still want to give them your money ?

D_P_Dance

There is an extra £70 in there which the new Government code bans,

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount of £70 for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also this,

"Abuse of process – the quantum

13. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-04). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued."

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/