Jump to content

Should I pay a private parking ticket?


Recommended Posts

I was parked in the Welsh Club car park for no more than about 10 minutes early this morning, while I dropped off my son to play football on the meadows, when I got back there was a guy putting a ticket on my car. I have been told by a friend now that I should not pay it because it is not a penalty, can anyone else through any light on this please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ignore it.

Both your friend and Alex are correct IGNORE IT for now and certainly Don't pay it! As it is not a ticket! It is merely a 'Speculative Invoice' there are loads of forum discussions about these scams.

They play the percentage game and that most people would just pay it.

Posted Images

Both your friend and Alex are correct IGNORE IT for now and certainly Don't pay it! As it is not a ticket! It is merely a 'Speculative Invoice' there are loads of forum discussions about these scams.

You have not committed any offense and you’ve been ticketed by a private company whose tickets have no status unless a case is brought at the expense of the issuer in a civil court. Under no circumstances get involved in any so-called "appeals procedure".
The "charge" is alleged under contract law. Despite what they may call it, what you have is an "invoice" (a decidedly dodgy one at that) from a private parking company who allege you have breached their terms and conditions by failing to park in accordance with their rules. The ticket is not backed up by statute, unlike those issued by councils and police.
The “ticket” is virtually unenforceable and the truth is that the Parking Company will probably not even try to enforce it by legal action. Instead they will use debt collectors who will threaten references to credit agencies, personal visits by bailiffs and removal of property. These threats have no foundation. The reality is they would need to bring civil litigation in the county court against the driver and prove a breach of prominently displayed terms and conditions. They will go to the DVLA to identify the registered keeper of the vehicle but you have no responsibility to tell them who was driving (even if it was you) and enforcement can only take place against the driver. These cases are largely dealt with by threats and bluster rather than any real action on the basis that most people pay up to avoid hassle. Completely IGNORE them, you may get a few threats but they will eventually go away. What you have is a "Speculative Invoice" look it up.
Don’t be a mug – stand firm don’t be bullied. Check Out This Site

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's NOT a fine, it NEVER will be a fine, and it has NO LEGAL grounds to be passed off as a fine, and there's nothing ILLEGAL about the parking as PPC's have no right to make traffic laws up as they go along, something which many of them seem to think that they can.

 

IT'S AN INVOICE, AND AN UNREASONABLE ONE AT THAT.

 

The most they would ever be able to reclaim in court is actual PROVABLE losses . . . i.e. the price of a P&D ticket. But they would first have to prove who the driver was, IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE, the advice given to Councillor Powell is typical of what most people do, they get frightened by the official looking document and stupidly pay it.

READ ALL ABOUT IT FIRST and you will see that its a scam.

 

This is a good place to start

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading a lot of these articles it's really surprising what you learn. I will never pay one of these private companies again, thank you for all the details, you see, where would we all be without the internet these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Both your friend and Alex are correct IGNORE IT for now and certainly Don't pay it! As it is not a ticket! It is merely a 'Speculative Invoice' there are loads of forum discussions about these scams. 

You have not committed any offense and you’ve been ticketed by a private company whose tickets have no status unless a case is brought at the expense of the issuer in a civil court. Under no circumstances get involved in any so-called "appeals procedure".

The "charge" is alleged under contract law. Despite what they may call it, what you have is an "invoice" (a decidedly dodgy one at that) from a private parking company who allege you have breached their terms and conditions by failing to park in accordance with their rules. The ticket is not backed up by statute, unlike those issued by councils and police.

The “ticket†is virtually unenforceable and the truth is that the Parking Company will probably not even try to enforce it by legal action. Instead they will use debt collectors who will threaten references to credit agencies, personal visits by bailiffs and removal of property. These threats have no foundation. The reality is they would need to bring civil litigation in the county court against the driver and prove a breach of prominently displayed terms and conditions. They will go to the DVLA to identify the registered keeper of the vehicle but you have no responsibility to tell them who was driving (even if it was you) and enforcement can only take place against the driver. These cases are largely dealt with by threats and bluster rather than any real action on the basis that most people pay up to avoid hassle. Completely IGNORE them, you may get a few threats but they will eventually go away. What you have is a "Speculative Invoice" look it up.

Don’t be a mug – stand firm don’t be bullied. Check Out This Site

 

How would you like someone parking on your drive. I also see there is a notice re parking. I hope they are taken to court, or bring the bailiffs in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Would you like someone to park their car on your drive for 10 mins without asking?

Not the point here buddy, it's more about the companies involved and their tactics plus the amount that they think they can charge you, and the fact that they are speculative invoices as opposed to parking tickets, which is what they dress them up to look like and most people pay. Private Eye Parking for example, charged my sister and her husband £90 for being in Wickes car park for over 2 hours but they were actually in their store buying a kitchen, it took ages to get it thru to the parking scammers and several letters from the store manger before they stopped pestering them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you like someone parking on your drive. I also see there is a notice re parking. I hope they are taken to court, or bring the bailiffs in.

That will probably not happen and the last time that it did a judge only allowed an equivalent parking amount to be charged (£4) not the £60-£90 that they think they can charge then they add on all the interest in an attempt to scare people. (bully boy tactics)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading a lot about this and yes its a big scam!! This is not about someone who owns a bit of land and someone parks on it, this is more about the scam companies such as Private Eye Parking and the a like. They approach companies and say, I'll tell you what, let me put up a few official looking notices and we can then operate a money making scheme and we will give your company half of the revenue and the company has to do nothing! Also pleas note that their is a different between these and council parking tickets. Read below:

 

 

Parking Charge Notices v. Penalty Charge Notices

 

 

This hub is a guide to what to do if you receive a Parking Charge Notice. These are issued by Private Parking Companies such as 'Excel', 'G24', 'MET Parking' etc. to vehicles parked in private car parks.

They should not be confused withPenalty Charge Notices issued by Local Authorities.

If you receive a PCN from your Local Authority, you should be aware that these ARE legally enforceable, and you may end up in Court if you fail to either pay or lodge an appeal. On the other hand, a PCN issued by a PPC is NOT legally enforceable (despite what they may tell you). PPC's know this, but rely on the fear-factor to scare people into paying.

 

Parking Charge Notice paperwork

 

 

PCN's are issued in 2 ways. The first way is via a 'ticket' on the screen (just like a Council-employed Civil Enforcement Officer would do), and the second (and most controversial) is via the post to the vehicles' registered keeper.

A lot of PPC's like to issue 'tickets' via the post, especially when using ANPR technology to log vehicle movements on and off their contracted sites. The reason being that if a driver visits the same site twice within a short time, they can 'edit-out' the log of the vehicle leaving after the first visit, and entering on the second visit, thus making it seam that the vehicle has 'overstayed the maximum allowed time'.

It is also common practice to produce 'tickets' that resemble the official PCN's issued by Local Authorities. PPC PCN's that bear a resemblance to those issued by L/A's are issued in breach of 'The Administration of Justice Act 1970, Sec. 40, s/sec. D' (see below), and as such, can be handed to the Police as evidence.

 

Do I have to pay a PPC PCN?

 

 

Absolutely not. The only recourse for a PPC in Court would be a charge of trespass. The Court could only award damages equivalent to the financial loss caused by the damage to the property caused by you. They would also have to prove you had no right of access.

Given that, as a shopper, you would be using the store's car park, a Court would deem that you did have a right to enter and use the car park provided, thus rendering the charge of trespass un-enforceable.

PCN's issued for parking in Disabled/Parent & Toddler Bays are also unenforceable. This being due to the fact that in private car parks neither type of bay has any legal existence, and is provided purely as a courtesy. As an aside, there is a debate raging at the moment as to whether the requirement to display Blue Badges when parked in L/A owned car park Disabled Bays (which ARE legally protected) actually breaches the DDA itself, as it discriminates against those with temporary disabilities who do not qualify for Blue Badges.

It is worth noting that if a carpark is 'free for 2 hours', but there is no means to pay for further parking, then the maximum sum a PPC could be awarded in Court (should it go that far) is £0.00. However, if the carpark is a Pay and Display carpark, then the costs awarded would have to reflect the lost revenue from using the carpark without paying.

 

If the PPC is also the owner

 

If the car park is actually owned by the PPC, then they can issue & enforce an invoice. Colchester University Foundation NHS Trust sacked their facilities management contractor back in 2012 & started running everything directly themselves. As a result, they can (& will) do Court. However, their PCN's are for only £10 which is the exact same charge as you would pay for a) 24 hours parking, or b) if you lose the ticket you collected from the barrier on the way in.

As far as I am aware, CUFNHST are the only Hospital to correctly operate a penalty charge scheme.

 

Do the PPC's accept appeals?

 

 

As of 1st October 2012, the game changes. This date sees the introduction of the 'Protection of Freedoms Act'. This puts in place the need for an independent appeals system (known as POPLA) to handle appeals against PPC PCNs.

The great thing about this is that each appeal will cost the PPC £32 to defend. Also, POPLA's final decision is only binding on the PPC. This means that if they reject the appeal, the registered keeper can carry-on ignoring the PPC, whilst if the appeal is successful, then the PPC has to adhere to the finding.

 

What can I expect from a PPC?

 

 

It is not uncommon for a PPC to send a series of letters threatening to -

  • Obtain a CCJ - They can't do this, as it is not a criminal matter
  • Seize the vehicle - Again, not a legal option
  • Send the Bailiffs round - As above

A PPC will have gone to a lot of trouble to locate the vehicles registered keeper in order to issue an invoice for whatever amount they feel they can get away with charging you.

The best advice (backed-up by a motoring Lawyer on BBC's Watchdog program (see useful links below)) is to simply ignore any correspondence from the PPC. Do NOT communicate with them in any way whatsoever.

Some PPC's will send you Court papers as a last resort. If you receive such a Court summons, give the Court a quick call just to check if it is genuine. This is because some PPC's have been known to use a template Court summons on which they simply alter the date and defendants details whilst keeping the same court number etc. However, it has also been known for a PPC to actually send a real court summons in the hope that the defendant treats it as a fake, and fails to turn-up in court, thus, the PPC will win by default.

It is not uncommon for a PPC to send up to 7 letters before passing-it on to a debt recovery agency (usually but not always, owned by the same directors as the PPC). These will resort to such tactics as sending people to your door posing as Debt Collectors (These, unlike Court appointed Ballifs, have no right of access across your threshold).

Some of the PPC's use a Solicitor named 'Graham White' (no connection with 'Graham White and Co., a highly respected firm of Solicitors). This Solicitor threatens court action, but has never taken anyone to court. He also uses the name 'Roxburghe Parking'.

What if the Court Summons is genuine?.

If you unlucky enough to receive a genuine Court Summons, then you MUST defend yourself. There is plenty of genuine help available on the internet. The best sites for info on all things motoring are listed in 'Useful Links'.

 

 

How do they get your details ?.

 

 

PPC's usually contact DVLA and pay the princely sum of £2.80. In return, DVLA will send them the details of the registered keeper (who may not actually be the person who drove the car into the carpark). It is thought (but yet to be proven) that DVLA may well be in breach of the Data Protection Act as it is unclear as to whether or not they are exempt from Section 10 of the Act.

DVLA have declared that, by simply sending-in a signed V5 when registering a vehicle, the registrant has given them the required authourisation to sell-on your details to anyone who wants them.

From 1st October 2012, the UK sees the introduction of the 'Protection of Freedoms Act'. Under s.56 ss.4, the Act will make the registered keeper liable for the 'speculative invoice'.

Other ways used to obtain evidence are by trawling motoring forums (and even troll-posting on them) or by obtaining copies of print/audio/video media in which a person has complained about the invoice they got for just simply turning-round in the carpark. Such public admissions are like finding the Holy Grail to these guys. If you do go to the press, at least make sure to use a false name and DO NOT let the press take your photo. The less 'evidence' you give linking yourself to the 'offence', the harder it is for them to build a case.

At least one PPC (Parking Eye) has recently advertised a vacancy for an 'Enforcement Officer' who's role involves 'Using information posted on blogs & forums in respect of gathering evidence'. It is therefore very important when posting on blogs & forums NOT to give to much detail.

Even posting that the 'ticket was issued for overstaying the time in Tesco Ipswich during a visit in September' could well be enough to allow a PPC investigator to pin-down a specific ticket. Also remember that even mentioning times may be enough to furnish the PPC with enough to try their luck in Court (not that they would win when you consider the 'VCS Parking Ltd v. HMRC' case anyway).

 

I've already paid, what can I do now ?.

 

 

If you have already paid, you can claim your money back. You need to follow these rules -

  • First off, send both the PPCand the landowner what is known as a 'Letter of intended action'. This will give them a set time-period in which to pay you back your money along with expenses. This needs to go by 1st Class Recorded Delivery.
     
  • Once the date given in the letter of intended action has expired and, assuming they have not paid-up, you need to begin Court action. This is easier than it appears. It can all be done online at 'MoneyClaimOnline'. The cost is £90, but this can be added to your expenses.
     
  • If they decide to still not pay and it gets to Court, make sure you turn up, if you don't, you will lose by default.

Why take action against the landowner as well as the PPC ?. Well, most PPCs own little or no assets, preferring instead to rent their computers and vehicles from a parent company. They are then free to collect as many CCJs as they wish without the Court Bailiffs being able to seize any tangible assets to sell.

It is not unusual for a PPC to liquidate their company and reform it under a slightly different name in order to avoid paying CCJs.

A landowner on the other hand, will be very likely to have tangible assets that the Bailiffs can seize to cover the amount claimed, so they are highly likely to pay-up. If enough people take them to Court, they may even sack the PPC and stop harrassing motorists.

 

If it ever gets to Court

 

 

If, on the off-chance, the PPC gets brave and takes you to Court, you do have some legal precedents to use in your defense.

One of the most popular is Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. Vs. New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd., House of Lords, 1914. In the case, Dunlop alledged it's tyre retailer New Garage was in breach of its contract in which it agreed not to sell Dunlop tyres for below the price set in the contract and if it did, the retailer would be liable for a charge of £5 to cover 'liquidated assets'. Dunlop won the case, New Garage however, won the appeal. Dunlop appealed this to the House of Lords.

The House of Lords held the clause was not a penalty, and merely a genuine preestimate of Dunlop’s potential loss, and so Dunlop could enforce the agreement. Lord Dunedin set out the following principles.

“To assist this task of construction various tests have been suggested, which if applicable to the case under consideration may prove helpful, or even conclusive. Such are: ( a ) It will be held to be penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach. (Illustration given by Lord Halsbury in Clydebank Case.[2]( b ) It will be held to be a penalty if the breach consists only in not paying a sum of money, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid (Kemble v Farren[3]). This though one of the most ancient instances is truly a corollary to the last test. Whether it had its historical origin in the doctrine of the common law that when A. promised to pay B. a sum of money on a certain day and did not do so, B. could only recover the sum with, in certain cases, interest, but could never recover further damages for non-timeous payment, or whether it was a survival of the time when equity reformed unconscionable bargains merely because they were unconscionable, - a subject which much exercised Jessel MR in Wallis v Smith[4] - is probably more interesting than material.( c ) There is a presumption (but no more) that it is penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage" (Lord Watson in Lord Elphinstone v Monkland Iron and Coal Co[5]).

On the other hand:

( d ) It is no obstacle to the sum stipulated being a genuine pre-estimate of damage, that the consequences of the breach are such as to make precise pre-estimation almost an impossibility. On the contrary, that is just the situation when it is probable that pre-estimated damage was the true bargain between the parties (Clydebank Case, Lord Halsbury; Webster v Bosanquet, Lord Mersey[6]).

Turning now to the facts of the case, it is evident that the damage apprehended by the appellants owing to the breaking of the agreement was an indirect and not a direct damage. So long as they got their price from the respondents for each article sold, it could not matter to them directly what the respondents did with it. Indirectly it did. Accordingly, the agreement is headed "Price Maintenance Agreement," and the way in which the appellants would be damaged if prices were cut is clearly explained in evidence by Mr. Baisley, and no successful attempt is made to controvert that evidence. But though damage as a whole from such a practice would be certain, yet damage from any one sale would be impossible to forecast. It is just, therefore, one of those cases where it seems quite reasonable for parties to contract that they should estimate that damage at a certain figure, and provided that figure is not extravagant there would seem no reason to suspect that it is not truly a bargain to assess damages, but rather a penalty to be held in terrorem. (source - Wikipedia)

 

Other cases that can be brought to defense include - The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 which can be used to declare that the wording on the signage is so vague as to fail to form a contract.

There have been some cases of late that really help the motorist win in Court. The best one is 'VCS Parking Ltd v. HM Revenue and Customs' (see link) in which it was argued by VCS that they had the right to act on behalf of the landowner in establishing a contract between the landowner and the land user. This case was held in the 'Upper Tier Tax Tribunal' at which Judges Roger Berner & Nicholas Aleksander decided that VCS did not have such rights as they could find no Law in the UK that allowed for this and gave VCS until June 17th 2012 to ptove them wrong (they didn't). The case makes for good reading.

 

Interesting snippets.

 

 

Martin Cutts gives the BPA a good kicking on their own patch

 

Martin Cutts, of the Plain Language Commission, was invited to give a speech at the ' Parking Review Enforcement Summit 2012' in London. This event was attended by people from both the public and private parking enforcement industry, including the new head of the BPA.

 

What the organisers had failed to realise was that Martin had recently hammered one of their members in Court and had appeared on the BBC's 'Watchdog' program to talk about it. He was asked to provide a copy of his speech prior to the summit. He refused. After he delivered his speech, there was absolute silence in the room. To find out why, read his speech in its entirety

HERE and judge for yourself what the PPCs made of it.

 

Disabledmotoring.org

 

This website supposedly offers help to drivers with disabilities. However, the information given regarding tickets issued by PPCs is totally incorrect. This stems from the fact that of their 20 corporate sponsors, 13 are PPCs. This generates a massive conflict of interests as these scum are using a legitimate charity to suck-in and lie-to those most in need of advice.

 

With all their false info, its no wonder they are losing members at an alarming rate. The charity is running at a yearly-loss so may not be around much longer.

 

Aintree NHS Trust and Trethowans.

 

In the Tax year 2010/11, Aintree NHS Trust used Trethowans to chase and recover £8,500 of un-paid parking 'invoices' at a cost to the trust of £160,000. In one case, the Judge through-out the claim, leaving the Trust open to a counter-claim for expenses incurred in defending the case. The legal cost to the trust - £1,600+. Was it worth it ?. Go figure.

 

ASDA and 'Town and Country Parking'.

 

Despite the fact that UK Civil Law permits that any claim for damages caused by trespass may not exceed the cost of rectifying the damage and pursuing the claim, ASDA answered a FOI request by stating that they split the profits made from the invoices issued with TCP and that they (ASDA) had actually donated £120,000 of this profit to charity. As they are barred by Law from making a profit on these parking invoices, how come they donated that much from the profits made on the parking operation?.

 

5 PPC operatives jailed

 

In the Midlands, 5 PPC operatives have been sent to jail for 'blackmail and extorting money with menaces'. Thats 5 down and a few hundred to go.

 

UKPC have a bad day in Court.

 

UKPC, a virilant PPC, had a bad day in Court today (10/04/12). They took the registered keeper of a car to Court for non-payment of a 'Parking Charge'. They lost. Interestingly, they had also taken the R/Ks spouse to Court over the SAME invoice and had lost that one as well. Hence then trying to pin their hopes on a 2nd case against the R/K. During the case, the Judge referred to the fine as an 'unenforceable penalty'.

 

Excel/VCS - get their arses kicked by Judge.

 

After the boss, Simon Renshaw Smith appeared in Scunthorpe's local rag claiming he was going to sort-out the parking issues in some local private carparks by taking non-payers to Court, he must have felt well peeved when a case went slightly wonky. The case, VCS Parking v. HM Revenue and Customs, held in the 'Upper Tax Tribunal' ( a Court of Record on the same level as the High Court) revolved around whether the PCN was a 'Fine' (these are VAT-exempt) or a 'Business invoice' which DOES incur VAT.

 

The Judges, Roger Berner & Nicholas Aleksander, ruled that neither Renshaw-Smith nor his company had any right to issue proceedings against the defendant either in the name of, or as representative of, the landowner. So, in other words, as the PPC has no right in Law to enter into a contract with a land user on behalf of the landowner, then there can be no breach of contract as one doesn't actually exist. A spetacular own goal by the PPC there me thinks.

 

ALDI receive fine for breaching planning condition over parking.

 

According to the Times, Aldi's Portslade store was fined £600 + £1215 costs for breaching conditions allowing 3 hours free parking. They reduced the free parking period to just 1 hour in breach of the original condition..

 

Read the full article

HERE.

 

 

Usefull Links

Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

 

This is the relevant section of the act.

 

Part V

Miscellaneous Provisions

40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

 

(1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he-

 

(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

 

(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

 

©falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

 

(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

 

(2) A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

 

(3) Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose-

 

(a)of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

 

(b)of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

 

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £100, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than £400.

 

Parking in Rail Station car parks

 

 

Please be aware that in certain cases, a Railway Station car park may be patrolled by a PPC, but unless the car park in question is covered by byelaws laid-down in the 'Railway Act', the ticket is still non-enforceable.

Where the car park is covered by the 'Railway Act', then a PCN can be issued in accordance with Section 14 of said Act.

Not all Station car parks are covered by the Act. It is down to you as an individual to contact the station and find-out.

 

 

 

Another Good is

Appeal Now

 

One firm got fine £26,000 read

this article

Link to post
Share on other sites

DontPaySign2.jpg

 

Read this article on the moneysavingexpert website

 

Fight Private Parking Tickets

 

A relative of mine was suddenly taken ill and rushed to hospital and there was nowhere for the daughter to park her car, as the hospital car park was full. So she came back with her friend and parked in the KFC car park. Both her and her friend ran to the hospital and once her friend realised the relative was okay, she said, I will go back to KFC have a bite to eat and wait for you. (This all happened within 20mins) When the driver returned she also went to KFC and ate lunch, she went out to her car and there was a speculative invoice (ticket) on her windscreen, she went into KFC to complain and was told that the parking is nothing to do with them and to take it up with the people who issued it. She explained all of this to me and I have advised her to ignore it! She has now had a bigger increased demand of £160 lol I have told her to ignore that too. Now she has received a letter from some so called bailiff, I have advised her to ignore that too and anything else that she may receive. It will eventually stop...

 

I read this posting about someone using a hire car and also parking at KFC, read it is is very good.

 

Also check out POPLA - 'Parking On Private Land Appeals' Website it has all the information you will ever need.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Guests
Guest smartieno1

Guys.....the lady parked on private land and did not follow the rules so she should bear the consequences for her behaviour....

You cannot lambast BRPC for financial impropriety then actively assist an inconsiderate driver to avoid paying a perfectly legitimate PCN ticket.........it makes you look stupid, biased and anti-BRPC

The best way to avoid a PCN is to park in accordance with the rules of the road or the landowner...

The fact is there is a public PAY and DISPLAY car-park less than 5 seconds down the road.."Ah..but that costs money, I hear you cry!" not half as much as the PCN though... :Winky:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys.....the lady parked on private land and did not follow the rules so she should bear the consequences for her behaviour....

You cannot lambast BRPC for financial impropriety then actively assist an inconsiderate driver to avoid paying a perfectly legitimate PCN ticket.........it makes you look stupid, biased and anti-BRPC

The best way to avoid a PCN is to park in accordance with the rules of the road or the landowner...

The fact is there is a public PAY and DISPLAY car-park less than 5 seconds down the road.."Ah..but that costs money, I hear you cry!" not half as much as the PCN though...  :Winky:

 

Phil, read all the links I have put up mate, you will see that 99% are scammers! If this was from the council or a legitimate company, I would not have an issue, but I really think you need to do some more homework on this subject before you jump in feet first and comment. I am slightly surprised at you mate as your normally always fight for the underdog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Guests
Guest smartieno1

Col....the point I am trying to make is ....no one on this site should endorse any legal chicanery because it deminishes the effect of BRPC's behaviour

It is not right to condem the BRPC whilst offering this lass a "Get out of Jail free" card ........she did wrong by parking on private land hence the reference to parking on her drive, or yours or mine I wouldn't like it and I would puncture all her tyres so she's got off lightly...lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Col....the point I am trying to make is ....no one on this site should endorse any legal chicanery because it deminishes the effect of BRPC's behaviour

It is not right to condem the BRPC whilst offering this lass a "Get out of Jail free" card ........she did wrong by parking on private land hence the reference to parking on her drive, or yours or mine I wouldn't like it and I would puncture all her tyres so she's got off lightly...lol

 

 

Sorry Phil, but I still think you are missing the point here! It is not about whether someone parks on your drive is it? 

This is all about the SCAMMERS out there thinking that they can charge extortionate so called fines all because they have put up a dodgy sign, which is NOT LEGALLY BINDING EITHER!

I am NOT offering a get out of jail free card, but what is happening here is purely a SCAM and a very well documented one too! (Even Martin at moneysaving expert is behind us on this one, read his forums) Which in my opinion is not that different to the BRPC SCAM either!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, (If I may call you by your first name) Colin is right, this is a massive scam, have a read through the various articles. I believe in your morals but this is a quick money making exercise that has been going on for years, that is why the government have not endorsed them. They are an unregulated bunch of cowboys, really they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

avoid paying a perfectly legitimate PCN ticket.........it makes you look stupid,  :Winky:

 

That's just it they are NOT LEGITIMATE PCN TICKETS!

Private parking companies.

PPC's use a form contractual law to fine vehicle keepers, which is unlawful and unenforcable. Private companies cannot issue penalties or fines!

They use forms and paperwork designed to imitate official council/local authority tickets.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Would you like someone to park their car on your drive for 10 mins without asking?


 


Actually, I did go to ask if it was okay to park for 10 mins but the club was all locked up (so please do not assume that I just parked and walked off). I am also a member of the club, which was the best part.

Eventually after receiving quite a few nasty worded and threatening letters I asked the club if they would get in touch with this company for me, which to be fair they did but the letters kept coming, after several letters and phones calls from both the club and myself, they reluctantly stopped hounding me.



I have read a lot of the articles mentioned above and this is obviously a scam, of that, I have no doubt. I suppose they prey on the vulnerable and as someone has mentioned, the play the percentage game. Panorama had a documentary on these types of scams about a month ago which highlighted the cowboy firms.
Thank you to everyone who has offered their advice above, really appreciated.

 

Which in my opinion is not that different to the BRPC SCAM either!

 

As far as the brpc discussion goes, i am of the same opinion as many others on here. Both of these topics amount to the same thing! They are both it in for the money, so keep up the good work with your fabulous website

Link to post
Share on other sites

Col....the point I am trying to make is ....no one on this site should endorse any legal chicanery because it deminishes the effect of BRPC's behaviour

I see your point, but i think it has the opposite effect, i think it is highlighting scams, which has to be good, furthermore, they are two totally different threads and should be treated as such. They are both related by one simple word SCAM :Winky:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not pay, they are totally and utterly unregulated and until such times as the government get their act in order to regulate these sharks i will never pay them either if i get an invoice placed on my car, which has only happened to me once and i ignored them completely. They manipulate and bully the public into paying large sums or unjustified amounts of money. I notice they rarely try to take people to court, just lots of harassment and threatening letters. I agree with the majority on this topic and suggest reading some good cases studies listed on forums, just do a quick search for speculative invoices in Google you will soon find them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Halo Leisure are starting to charge for parking at Hereford Leisure Centre tomorrow and are employing 'Corporate Services (Hereford) Limited' to do the enforcement. Here is a link to an experience of someone getting one of their tickets at KFC Hereford http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.consumeractiongroup.co.uk%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3F340278-Civil-Penalty-Charge-Notice-at-KFC&h=2AQHer7ul They are 'approved' by the British Parking Association and so can access data from the DVLA I believe. But the website indicates they are not authorised for debt recovery. See link: http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Approved-Operators

Link to post
Share on other sites

Halo Leisure are starting to charge for parking at Hereford Leisure Centre tomorrow and are employing 'Corporate Services (Hereford) Limited' to do the enforcement. Here is a link to an experience of someone getting one of their tickets at KFC Hereford http://www.facebook....KFC&h=2AQHer7ul They are 'approved' by the British Parking Association and so can access data from the DVLA I believe. But the website indicates they are not authorised for debt recovery. See link: http://www.britishpa...roved-Operators

 

Roger they are no different to any of the others on mentioned in this thread, virtually anyone can set up a business and become registered with DVLA for a fee and have access to data..

 

You will see that they are speculative invoice that are being issued and NOT parking fines/tickets, type speculative invoices into Google and read all about it. You could also read this topic which was one of the first that came up when I typed in it

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...