vinci "fine"

Per the advice of all who have posted above this contribution.

Jules, I am very pleased you have made queries and have not sat back and accepted the scanty advice you were hitherto given from every person with whom you had a face-to-face dealing.

Of course, you didn't know at the time what level of authority Vinci possessed. If you did, you could have driven away before he affixed the sticker to your window; not that its issuing makes any difference.

But I am frustrated by the ill advice offered by this turkey from the local council. Perhaps he should confine himself to the terms of his appointment, he is not qualified to advise on private matters - that entire sector is independent of his office; and he is evidently not versed in matters relating to Contract Law, but worst of all, he is not commissioned by you, the taxpayer, to explore this area of legislation - SO WHY DID HE DO IT?

I appreciate he was acting out of good faith, there is certainly nothing for him to gain out of you forwarding remittance to your pursuers, but he really should have been more professional.

First - the law HAS NOT changed. Changes are set to take place from 1st October (less than two weeks). I don't want to drill this into you with this single post but for the purpose of this thread. A) You are bound by pre-October 2012 legislation, The upcoming changes are technical and STILL would not make this Vinci "parking charge" lawful. I won't say any more for the moment on that note as there is no need.

It was dreadful advice, "go pay the fine". What he should have said was, "I really don't know, I have heard somewhere that things may have changed, I would suggest you explore the matter further, seek legal advice, go online, but sadly I work for the local authority and cannot guarantee correct advice". Had he said this, it would have been to his credit.

Private companies are bound by Contract Law and can only seek actual losses. In your case this is the price for an hour's extension on top of the three hours paid. You say this is £1? Well that's all they can seek legally.

DON'T APPEAL - DON'T WRITE TO THEM. WAIT for them to pay to get your details from the DVLA. When the threatening letters arrive, reseal them one by one, get a black marker pen, write the words, "REFUSED! RETURN TO SENDER" on the envelope, and post back into Royal Mail box. They'll get the message.

And don't fall for any "debt collector" trick. They are all part of the scam. Only the County Court can delcare their claim as valid and believe me, if this happens you will be the first to know. Until then, if someone knocks on your door, tell them to Get Lost.

missy-jules wrote: »

I'll get out my black marker pen and really enjoy scribbling on those envelopes. Cheeky bar stuards.

Jules

Last time I called someone bar steward , I was banned from his pub. He didn't hear me properly! Joking of course.

I've corrected the embarrassing typos on my above paragraph for future reference but you've read it so it doesn't matter now.

So it was a female in the parking department. Not that it matters, she proved unequivocally that she had no knowledge in private matters in her own reference to your invoice as a "fine". For the issuing party to use that word is evidently the most damaging term for their interest: one citizen does not "fine" another. But if you check the Vinci literature, you probably won't see that word anywhere. In the past, some PPCs used "penalty" and some still use it on signage though it is being phased out as one by one the companies come to their senses. Use of those terms is unlawful and can land them in very serious trouble if they try taking on a person not to have paid their "penalty" or "fine".

What Vinci and their decrepit half-siblings at Euro Parks, UKPC and APCOA do is advise visitors to their car parks that they are entering a contract by which breach of terms spells that the driver tacitly agrees to pay this much money (eg. £70) reduced to so much (eg. £40) if paid within two weeks from date of issue.

If these are not de facto penalties then what are they? What is company losses? £70? Then why offer the person who caused you to lose that amount a reduced rate? Alternatively it losses were only £40, where do they think they stand admitting that the cost rises by another £30 after 14 days? It's one or the other. Now that should tell you something for when "debt collector" threats start landing on your door, suddenly demanding about £100 - even going as far as to scare you into thinking that if a CCJ is obtained, your costs will be higher. Nothing so petty! "If a CCJ is obtained". They make it sound like obtaining an interim bank statement - just order it from your local branch. No sir! County Court Judgements are not liberally awarded to any Tom, !!!!!! or Vinci who wishes to have one. First they apply by filling out papers, then the judge examines it, sees that the claimant is seeking unlawful payment, and subsequently tears the papers. All this with you none the wiser, so your pursuers continue with the threatograms in the hope that you'll back down. You get about six over a five-month period then the case self-destructs.

Half_way wrote: »

From my understanding the law will change, but the invoices will just be as un enforcable as ever.

Your sources are correct. The antagonist will be able to point the finger at registered keeper but that is all. Contract Law and its requirements remain the legislation so the losses claim shall continue to be the saviour - that and distortions or other variations of legal guidelines which those opportunist bandits will doubtless attempt.