PCN National Parking Enforcement 3 minutes 1 second in a parent and child bay with child in back..

yellowstickers

Interesting start to this weekend, following an email to a few Co-op directors, with the head of member and customer support emailing until 9:30 on Friday night... we'll see if anything comes of their enquiries 

yellowstickers

Co-op has of course decided the Notice should stand, and the Letter Before Claim has landed...

Coupon-mad

yellowstickers said:

Co-op has of course decided the Notice should stand, and the Letter Before Claim has landed...

No paying. Sit tight but respond robustly to the LBC, denying any debt and repeating why.

Do this in September, as your first revenge:

IMPORTANT - ONLY 3 WEEKS LEFT:

Please concentrate on the Call For Evidence and sending an email to the DLUHC showing your £170 threatograms and refusals to cancel (redact your address).

The Government want to hear from consumers as well as PPCs and Question 4 is the one to answer, if you only do one.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6471857/please-reply-to-question-4-of-the-governments-call-for-evidence-re-the-level-of-parking-charges

Explained there.

PLEASE READ AND JOIN US.

This is vital.  Attach your letters to your email and tell the Government how receiving extortionate 3 figure threats and being now likely to be forced to defend a court claim feels.

Tell them (if it's true to say) you would have paid, say £25 if you'd got a fairly-issued PCN at a lower capped rate for good reason, under different circumstances. But instead this was predatory codswallop for no bad conduct at all by the driver.

It's the fact it is 3 figures and issued spuriously AND then increased by scummy third parties with a clear threat: 'pay up and pay more, as a late punishment, or you will be sued' that makes people see it as a complete scam.  No-one listens to reason. The debt recovery firms are purely involved to leech more money and frighten people, and it's not even a valid case.

This is one email from you to the DLUHC. One question to answer.  Make sure you attach letters to provide evidence because that's key.

Obviously state at the start of your email response to the DLUHC and in the subject line, that you are a consumer and are answering Question 4 on the parking Call for Evidence.

The bold/red demands from third parties for stupid amounts of money actually stop people paying or engaging. This business model bears all the hallmarks of a 'protection racket' then passing data from pillar to post, ending up with aggressive bulk litigators who drive cases to court in huge numbers.

Change the law... we already are...

yellowstickers

Coupon-mad said:

yellowstickers said:

Co-op has of course decided the Notice should stand, and the Letter Before Claim has landed...

No paying. Sit tight but respond robustly to the LBC, denying any debt and repeating why.

Do this in September, as your first revenge:

IMPORTANT - ONLY 3 WEEKS LEFT:

Please concentrate on the Call For Evidence and sending an email to the DLUHC showing your £170 threatograms and refusals to cancel (redact your address).

The Government want to hear from consumers as well as PPCs and Question 4 is the one to answer, if you only do one.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6471857/please-reply-to-question-4-of-the-governments-call-for-evidence-re-the-level-of-parking-charges

Explained there.

PLEASE READ AND JOIN US.

This is vital.  Attach your letters to your email and tell the Government how receiving extortionate 3 figure threats and being now likely to be forced to defend a court claim feels.

Tell them (if it's true to say) you would have paid, say £25 if you'd got a fairly-issued PCN at a lower capped rate for good reason, under different circumstances. But instead this was predatory codswallop for no bad conduct at all by the driver.

It's the fact it is 3 figures and issued spuriously AND then increased by scummy third parties with a clear threat: 'pay up and pay more, as a late punishment, or you will be sued' that makes people see it as a complete scam.  No-one listens to reason. The debt recovery firms are purely involved to leech more money and frighten people, and it's not even a valid case.

This is one email from you to the DLUHC. One question to answer.  Make sure you attach letters to provide evidence because that's key.

Obviously state at the start of your email response to the DLUHC and in the subject line, that you are a consumer and are answering Question 4 on the parking Call for Evidence.

The bold/red demands from third parties for stupid amounts of money actually stop people paying or engaging. This business model bears all the hallmarks of a 'protection racket' then passing data from pillar to post, ending up with aggressive bulk litigators who drive cases to court in huge numbers.

Change the law... we already are...

Thank you for yet more reassurance; one is not invited to respond, however, only pay - is an email to a general address likely to be read?

Coupon-mad

I'm sorry?  The most important email is to the Government this month.  Please re-read my reply and use your evidence to change the law.

But of course you also respond to a LBC.  This is standard stuff discussed every day. Not new advice. Search the forum for:

robust LBC response

yellowstickers

I've just had an email to advise that Jo Churchill has contacted National Parking Enforcement on our behalf; is this common? Does it ever yield results?

yellowstickers

Coupon-mad said:

I'm sorry?  The most important email is to the Government this month.  Please re-read my reply and use your evidence to change the law.

But of course you also respond to a LBC.  This is standard stuff discussed every day. Not new advice. Search the forum for:

robust LBC response

Yes, I meant that the LBC came with no instructions regarding reply/appeal, nor any contact details.

Coupon-mad

Can you show us?  Cover your data.

yellowstickers

Hopefully it is attached here. Can I just clarify: send SAR, adapt robust LBC response and send for the time being? Can you possibly link me directly as the suggested search term brings up many other posts recommending searching same, rather than robust responses themselves! Thank you.

yellowstickers

Hopefully it is attached here. Can I just clarify: send SAR, adapt robust LBC response and send for the time being? Can you possibly link me directly as the suggested search term brings up many other posts recommending searching same, rather than robust responses themselves! Thank you.