Fortunately I have had no direct issues with this company, but have recently had need to write to them on behalf of a neighbour. I have copied my letter below just for the fun of it - I hope it will prove to be of use to someone. Dear Sirs, Re: PCN **************** I freely admit that I considered ignoring your ‘Parking Charge Notice’ in its entirety (naughty, it is not a PCN, it is just an unsubstantiated invoice), but, as I have nothing better to do at present and felt the overwhelming desire to receive some comedy input from your firm, I have now decided to make a response. Firstly, as you are probably aware, the registered keeper of the vehicle has no liability to make payment. The only person you may be able to pursue for this matter is the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The registered keeper has no legal obligation to provide details of the driver to you or your company. Please feel free to provide photographic evidence of the driver and their name and address at this point. Secondly, driving onto and making use of parking facilities on private land does not automatically infer that a contract has been entered into. Please feel free to provide documentary evidence that a contract exists and has been agreed by all parties. Thirdly, although the vehicle in question does have a blue badge, you have failed to provide photographic evidence of a failure to display it in a car park on private land where the blue badge scheme is not enforceable. Please feel free to forward the required photographic evidence. Having done some research on UKPC, I fully appreciate that you will totally ignore this letter and continue to write to me advising me of the doom and gloom that you foresee in my future. It is my assumption that, at some point, you will refer this to your own debt collection agency (do you still use your subsidiary company Hunter Forrest & Co?) with threats of legal action and additional costs. Please, do not feel obligated to pursue your normal course of correspondence just to satisfy my need to have some laughter. You could instead skip straight to the legal proceedings, as I have no intention of paying this ‘charge’. As I seriously doubt anyone has read this far, it may seem pointless that I continue writing, but I will point out some other matters for your consideration nevertheless; Your ‘charge certificate’ whilst using words such as ‘enforcement’, ‘contravention’ and ‘unauthorised’ would imply that you are suggesting that this is an official penalty charge notice issued under the Road Traffic Act 1991. This, of course, is not the case. For your information, I will include an excerpt from the Administration of Justice Act 1970: Section 40 of the act provides that 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 contract, he or she: (a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or 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 represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; (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. Paragraph (a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise legal) for the purpose of: (1) 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 (2) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process. It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (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. Having already stated that, as the registered keeper, I have no liability to make payment, it could be construed that any further correspondence would constitute harassment. Damn, I was so looking forward to more of your companies humour! I can however cross my fingers in the hope that you have no interest in the law and will continue to write regardless. Please ensure that if you do write further, to make your correspondence on softer paper as the harder paper tends to inflame my haemorrhoids. I suppose that at some point UKPC will try to imply that a contract has been entered into, this was briefly mentioned earlier. Again, for your information, I have included a section of the Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). 5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract. (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was. All future correspondence from UKPC will result in a copy of this letter being sent again. As I have gone to the expense of placing a stamp on this letter, I will not be doing so in future as I see no point in incurring additional expense in re-iterating my position in disputing your claims for this invoice. Yours Faithfully

OK, thanks for that, I will give it a try.

When changing to a pre payment meter, I was under the impression that it was a legal requirement for the bill payer to be present before the work could be actioned whether or not a warrant was issued. I read this on the EDF energy website.

Hi, When I moved in, paid a deposit and rent in advance to my L/L. L/L has defaulted on mortgage payments and the property has now been taken over by the lender several years down the line. They are allowing me to continue renting, but have requested a deposit. Tried contacting former L/L and it seems he has spent the deposit. My questions are as follows: 1. Am I obliged to provide a new deposit? 2. How can I get my deposit back from original L/L? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.