parking eye + Equita PLEASE READ

pappa_golf · 11 December 2015 at 11:15PM

yotmon wrote: »

Maybe it should be looked at from a different angle by asking why were the letters sent out in the first place.

Was it to update the files of all these miscreants that had not made payments. Send out vague letters in the hope of reeling a few in. Some may panic and pay to get rid of the problem. Others may get in contact to query the cost and by doing so, confirm their previous address details. Many will have moved address within the last 2-3 years and so will be unable to reply. The latter group could be targeted for court as easy 'default wins' to be traced after the event with a ccj scalp.
Is there a 'cunning plan' behind all this, or are we all speculating too much and it's just something as simple as them having a spring clean of the old filing cabinets ???

before selling them off to the likes of MIL Collections ?

salmosalaris · 11 December 2015 at 11:16PM

yotmon wrote: »

Maybe it should be looked at from a different angle by asking why were the letters sent out in the first place.

Was it to update the files of all these miscreants that had not made payments. Send out vague letters in the hope of reeling a few in. Some may panic and pay to get rid of the problem. Others may get in contact to query the cost and by doing so, confirm their previous address details. Many will have moved address within the last 2-3 years and so will be unable to reply. The latter group could be targeted for court as easy 'default wins' to be traced after the event with a ccj scalp.
Is there a 'cunning plan' behind all this, or are we all speculating too much and it's just something as simple as them having a spring clean of the old filing cabinets ???

Christmas bonus time .
Much greater chance of people paying up when there's better things to occupy them . And if as a result claims are issued , which seem to peak at holiday periods , both defaults and paying up are more likely

Plus as others are speculating these may have never been destined for court , especially folliwing tbe spurious £40 increase

pappa_golf · 11 December 2015 at 11:24PM

a lot of the cases , that received one or two letters were rated at £100 , now equita are asking for upto £200 in quite a few cases, and multiple claims exceeding £800 ,

this is not the usual (PCS) add £40 on.

first link I can find (using phone) http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=38968

HO87 · 11 December 2015 at 11:25PM

Have I misunderstood something here but, apart from everything else, is one of the issues the fact that Equita (a fellow Crapita Group company) are attempting to collect debts on behalf of PE?

Much as it pains me to say so but what is wrong with that? Is anyone being deceived?

In the past the issues have been with PPC's that posed as separate debt collection companies - and there have been a good few examples - when those so-called DCA's were simply fronts and were intended to deceive. The problem was the deception.

That is not the case here and whichever way you cut it Equita are a separate legal entity to PE. I am not condoning any methods they may employ but I see nothing to complain about in terms of their corporate relationship. Adding fees onto debts they might be pursuing by virtue of POFA - that is from the keeper (as opposed to the driver) - may mean that they fall foul of para 4(5) Sch 4 unless those fees were included in PE's NtK's but I don't see that mentioned anywhere (I have only skim-read most of this thread).

pappa_golf · 11 December 2015 at 11:36PM

yup , glad you added to the posting HO87

in most cases there were no NTK issued , just letters from PE asking for money , and in most cases £85 or £100

equita have appeared and added £100 to each charge , in order to worry people

separate entity or not , they are referring people back to PE to pay the inflated fees NOT the original figure

so PE ARE exceeding the figures in there letters

salmosalaris · 11 December 2015 at 11:37PM

The issue I have is DVLA data was requested by PE for the purposes of chasing the RK under the provisions of POFA .
For a sister company to now chase an inflated amount , that can only be recovered from the driver , means that the data has now been used for two purposes against the RK (POFA ) and driver (non POFA ) . The DVLA has made clear this is not permissible .

beamerguy · 11 December 2015 at 11:44PM

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I agree 100% with your sentiments but.................. the retailer needs to know WHY people are staying away. When they see customer numbers drop, they will not automatically put the blame on the PPC. They need to be told.

Much better that people actually write to the shop in question and their head office saying exactly why they will be shopping elsewhere. Unfortunately, ALDI have the PPC infestation and LIDL too, and their prices are so low that the option for many people to shop elsewhere just isn't an option. Personally, I don't like the shopping experience in either and prefer elsewhere and where I live, we have NO PPC INFESTATION in the main food shopping retailers!!!

Dad, both you and Mark and Pappa are right, it is so frustrating

A few months ago in a Lidl, after spending £100 got a ticket. I told Lidl that they have become the most expensive supermarket in the UK (INCLUDING THE £70 TICKET) I told them they have two choices, either they get the ticket cancelled or I will broadcast how expensive Lidl really is. The ticket was quickly cancelled. So yes, as Mark says, hit the supermarkets etc with this. It applies to all retailers who use these cowboys and in particular Parking Eye.

I will tell you that I had a go at the CEO of sainsburys about this even though I did not have a ticket.
I got a reply from a Danielle Travers, Executive Office saying this

"I realise you feel this is really unfair and would like to assure you that if a receipt showing that a customer has shopped with us can be provided, then we will certainly consider overturning the charge."

All the big supermarkets are fully aware, they just need to be told by everyone the business they will lose.
I am sure that up to the run to xmas, it will not be a worry for them but in the early months of next year where business is bad, they will start to listen.
The aim for everyone is to start with Parking Eye and getting them run out of town. Let's face it, Parking Eye and the low life companies they operate are giving false hopes to all the other cowboys. Parking Eye is just small fry compared to the huge power of the supermarkets, they have to go.

If Parking Eye think that the Beavis case is the bees knees in the scam, think again, rats can be skinned in many ways

pappa_golf · 11 December 2015 at 11:52PM

alas it the influx of ANPR and ghodst ticketing that are causing the majority of problemds

IF you returned to your car and there was a ticket on it , you could walk back into the supermarket and kick of , and return your goods

however a lot of people still pay cash and if the shopping was just for food or no items with warranties , how many save scraps of paper for 14 days? or in the case of ghost tickets 29 days?

if they want to look after the parking to ease problems , instead of just making money , they should have operatives on site and issue tickets ON cars !

shop managers when "harassed" by a shopper with a ticket , might look at the time allowed to park , sometimes a multi shop site with cafe , and look at the queues on the tills .

beamerguy · 11 December 2015 at 11:55PM

salmosalaris wrote: »

The issue I have is DVLA data was requested by PE for the purposes of chasing the RK under the provisions of POFA .
For a sister company to now chase an inflated amount , that can only be recovered from the driver , means that the data has now been used for two purposes against the RK (POFA ) and driver (non POFA ) . The DVLA has made clear this is not permissible .

Yes the DVLA HAVE a lot to answer for but, whilst they collect £2.50 a pop for info which we have not given permission for, they are not interested in protecting the public, they are certainly not interested in the Data Protection Act. But that is government for you, they look after their own and the public can p...s in the wind.

Maybe Mr Corbyn should get seriously involved, he could win voters in a big way and give Master Cameron a rough time

pappa_golf · 11 December 2015 at 11:58PM

unfortunately if you read the small print and sign a V5 , you have allowed then to release details to a lot of people , including your neighbours , if they use the correct form

however in the case of PARKING offences , that info can only be released to member of the 2 approved ATAs

parking eye + Equita PLEASE READ

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free