I don't think this is right. To my knowledge that rule only applies to rent arrears.

You can pay the council direct, as there is no regulation allowing them to require you to pay their agents. If you have offered payment and they have both refused, then any subsequent levy would be unlawful.

Of course they can 'apply for a CCJ': the BPA code of practice says so. (Using the 'small claims court service' whatever that is.)

What about claiming a loading exemption for obtaining the ticket?

The charges for council tax before goods are levied are £24 for the first visit and £18 for the second. No other charge can be made until goods are levied.

I know it applies to parking, but both have the same ancient common law roots, so in the absence of a difference in the regulations the principle is the same. I can't see anyhting in the council tax enforcement regulations covering this: I suspect it's part of the contract with the local authority, which means it isn't worth the paper it's written on for proving what the law is.

They can charge a maximum of what I stated, until they actually levy something. That figure includes the letter fee, they can't add anyhting else on.

Yes

£53.68, rising to £107.53 after a second visit and £174.46 for a third. Once goods are levied and you still fail to pay they can add on reasonable costs to remove them.

Interesting, I was under the impression that a levy for the charges alone is illegal. In JBW v Westminster the court described bailiff fees as 'not a debt like other debts': Once the amount on the liability order is paid, there is no longer any debt which can be levied on.

They can't add any removal costs until they have levied some goods. They can carge for the initial letter and add 28% of the amount owed per visit for up to three visits. It's somewhat ambiguous whether the amount owed includes previous charges or not (for council tax it does not), until this is tested bailiffs seem to assume that it does for PCNs. They cannot add on the DVLA charge and I'm surprised they tried this. The 28% has to cover all of their costs.

@Busby: What rules? They have to allow time to buy a ticket, and 2 minutes is not statutory it's just been arbitrarily made up.

Up to you, but it looks as though OPC are chancing a few claims at the moment trying to get a default judgment, but they drop the ones that are defended.

If the firm was legitimate, they would work on the basis that they remove a vehicle once a valid complaint is made about it by the space's owner. They won't agree to this, as then they can't target residents, which will be their only income source once the deterrent works.

No insurance will be a court fine. £75 fee for a letter also points to this (as there is no limit to fees for fine collection).

I wish I could say I'm surprised.

Is it normal for solicitors to phone people chasing debts, like a collection agency? Surely a solicitor should be preparing court papers.

The owner is responsible. It may be possible to set the warrant aside on the gorunds that the owner didn't receive the notice to owner, but I'd like to hear what others think. Alternatively the bailiffs fees can probably be challenged – don't let them in.

Can I bet that most people ticketed are blue badge holders who have made an error? And presumably "All profits from tickets issued are added to the centre’s Silverburn Cares fund, which supports charities and not-for-profit organisations" means the small chunk going to the centre, not the majority kept by the PPC.

Better to file it somewhere safe. The usual advice is to ignore these fake tickets, but in your particular circumstances it wouldn't hurt to write and explain what happened. If they won't listen then you can ignore them.

Sounds like a private company. Does it say who it's from?

I agree.

What I meant was if the driver has breached an obligation it will be a penalty. But PPCs are starting to improve their signs and word them so that the charge is a charge for parking, so we cannot blindly go on stating it is a penalty without considering this. That was the mistake the OFT made in the bank charges case. Not if there is a contract to pay the amount agreed. Then the loss would be non-payment of that amount. If I sign a tenancy agreement for £100 a week it is pretty clear that the landlord can recover the £100, not just his costs. His loss is the £100 that wasn't paid. I've long been a supporter of not paying PPCs but we have to move with the changing methods. The fact that they are tightening up their signs suggests to me more court cases will follow. Otherwise why bother?

I don't agree with this reasoning. It is too close to arguing that consideration must be adequate. It may be a penalty but it depends on the facts of each case; on whether the driver has breached some obligation. If it's just a charge to park there it cannot be assessed for fairness. The actual loss for breach would then be the amount that was owed, but unpaid. I know this isn't the usual PPC scenario, but it's one I'm increasingly seeing, presumably as they are being forced to tighten up their behaviour by better awareness. I think JonCris's approach is something to look at, as in the case of merely agreeing to pay for parking the PPC must provide consideration, i.e. the right to park, and some seem to expressly deny this by referring to "your wrongful parking" or similar. But it's not enough to just say they're charging a lot so it must be a penalty. People are allowed to charge a lot for things, and the amount of the charge cannot be assessed as being too high.

You can challenge the penalty by requesting a court hearing. This is something of a crapshoot as there was a thread a while ago where someone did this and lost because the muppets court blatantly misdirected themselves over the law on amber lights. The correct law is: This clearly covers your situation, and it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt otherwise (since the meaning of the light is a fundamental element of the offence), but there is an element of palm tree justice about the whole process.