Letter from Debt Collectors for parking fine!

Pollyannamay

Received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus for an unpaid parking fine for pulling over in a B&Q car park to take a ten minute phone call at 10pm. This is the first I've heard of this, no previous letters received. This is the sign on the car park but did not see this in the dark. Not like I was parked up over night. DRP are wanting £170. Any advice much appreciated.

fisherjim

What does the newbies thread on here tell you about useless debt collectors letters?

Coupon-mad

Post 4 of the NEWBIES thread more than covers this stage. But:

You need to ask yourself why you have received nothing before this.  No PCN or reminder.

It went to an old address didn't it, due to your oversight (unless we are wrong)?  Have you changed address and not instructed the DVLA to change the Registered Keeper's address on the vehicle's Registration Document (V5C or 'logbook')?  Nothing to do with your driving licence; this is separate.

Was the vehicle hired or leased?

If we are wrong with the above, then complain to the parking firm that they went straight to the debt demands and sent no Notice to Keeper.

Coupon-mad

Pollyannamay said:

Received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus for an unpaid parking fine for pulling over in a B&Q car park to take a ten minute phone call at 10pm. This is the first I've heard of this, no previous letters received. This is the sign on the car park but did not see this in the dark. Not like I was parked up over night. DRP are wanting £170. Any advice much appreciated.

Please come back and talk to us; don't pay this.

KeithP

Apart from the usual Fairlie v Fenton issue, these words on that sign should be a cause for concern*...

They are saying that Smart are working on behalf of 'the owners', but obviously do not state who 'the owners' are.
The next sentence states that 'vehicles are left at owner's risk'.

My understanding of those two sentences taken together is that the owners of the car park are accepting the risk of harm being done to vehicles. Especially when one considers how ambiguity is resolved with s69 of CRA2015.


*that 'cause for concern' being one for the car park owner of course.