Letter Before Claim (From a resident taking photos while I was making a delivery)

vanillasky2

MalMonroe said:

Hi, this really is outrageous.

I'd just like to add (I've had three similar invoices at various times in the past and paid none of them) that the letter dated 8 December says that they may be instructed to commence legal proceedings . . . etc.  So they don't even know whether they're going to be instructed. That's another effort to scare you into paying up. 

I agree with what Coupon-mad and KeithP say. 

it felt outrageous at the time when the woman was ignoring me / taking photos of my van / losing her mind for being mildly inconvenienced, and it continues to be annoying/ a bit worrying despite reassurances...

But it's heartening to hear about your success – you didn't have to go to court? And it's a good point about the may be instructed too and pointing out their scare tactics... maybe the SAR will reveal something that will prove useful in getting these scumbags to stop trying to rob me. 

Mouse007

@Coupon-mad you seem to have an intimidating and reassuring amount of experience/posts dealing with this kind of thing

That she has

vanillasky2 said:

So please help me understand how no term was breached? ... 
You've said that I "wasn't even parked but involved in an authorised brief delivery" ... is that why you're saying no term was breached? Because I was making an 'authorised brief delivery' and was therefore not 'parked'?
They seem to be claiming any amount of time in the bay is cause for a valid PCN...

What CM and others here refer to is the definition of parking. The case of Jopson v Homeguard makes this quite clear, read paragraph 19 (page 7) onwards.

fisherjim

vanillasky2 said:

@Coupon-mad you seem to have an intimidating and reassuring amount of experience/posts dealing with this kind of thing

So please help me understand how no term was breached? ... 
You've said that I "wasn't even parked but involved in an authorised brief delivery" ... is that why you're saying no term was breached? Because I was making an 'authorised brief delivery' and was therefore not 'parked'?
They seem to be claiming any amount of time in the bay is cause for a valid PCN...

Any chance that they'll just stop / give up and not take me to court? 
Can it be disregarded somehow because the photos are from a resident (not a camera/registered Parking Control Officer?)

Thanks again

You seem to think that these parking companies have some sort of authority or legitimacy when in fact they are just unregulated chancers that make up rules to suit their own greedy agenda.

They do not have "registered parking control officers" they employ any old muppet they can bully into giving out as many speculative charges they can, along side in this case self ticketing busy bodies (no training just a camera phone and vindictive) that get a back hander for any tickets paid.

You really need your own photos, these scammers will provide pristine master copies from their data base which often bare no relation to the actual signage on site.

They won't just give up like that threatening letters might make money for them and their chums in Gladstones both are bottom feeders.

Follow the advice given on here the regulars have seen it all!

Coupon-mad

Read Jopson v Homeguard and you will get it!

Google the case and you see what is 'parking' and what isn't.