Euro car parks Illegal tickets ? Continued from previous thread

[crem]

Ohhh no, i just read the post 2 above mine...a 5th letter and phone call....omg i dont think i can cope with the hassle...maybe i'll pay it tomorrow morning it's gone from £70 to £90 to £119....i'm freaking oooout!

 

Why is the phone ringing a "hassle"? I have caller display and if it shows "not avail" or "withheld" then it doesn't get answered. It goes to ansaphone after a couple rings and they can speak to that or hang, I couldn't really care whoit is if they don't show their number. No hassle at all for me.

[sweetie23]

Have u all had tickets??

[SURFBOY]

Ohhh no, i just read the post 2 above mine...a 5th letter and phone call....omg i dont think i can cope with the hassle...maybe i'll pay it tomorrow morning it's gone from £70 to £90 to £119....i'm freaking oooout!

Can i have your address and telephone number?

If you cave in that easily i think i might send you some letters demanding increasing ammounts then call you demanding you pay me !

Seriously, IGNORE , Its not that hard to do and you will soon get the hang of it.

[letshelp]

Have u all had tickets??

 

I have had 33 so far and ignored all the threats from the PPC and their ridiculous debt collectors without, court or any of their threatened actions. If you have money to throw away is there not a charity more worthy of your hard earned funds.

regards

[sweetie23]

thanks guys..

[spikes62]

daughter gets 4 to 5 a week for 3 years she keeps parking their nothing every happens so dont worry ps she is a copper as well and enjoys free parking, its not a perk cos the threats go up and down with the moon cycle stand firm and play a game of "guess the threat" its quite interesting how far they will go,,, just ignore

[spikes62]

If you feel the need to contact them ie: cant take the pressure from the threats, then please add in your letter a reference of law to get them to back off as they have NO legal standing to collect this scammed money....

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 represent, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it:

C) falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment:

D) utters a document falsley represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not:

 

That gets them to leave you alone........ but if you collect the 6 letters from them sell um on e-bay for a fortune ... full set and it cost you nothing, stand firm they cant do a thing and wont. Happy parking for free

[Goingforaride]

Ha Ha , laughed at that....'guess the threat'...like it!

 

Yep, I forgot to mention, when my 4th letter came, they dropped the invoice from £119.38 down to £90, for a 'quick settlement to finalise this matter'.

[Dougal16T]

Whilst I agree that the e-mail was a waste of time, I am sure that the sender felt a lot better afterwards!It does seem to me to be about time someone dealt properly with this 'company'.

 

Their activities are in my humble view, criminal. It is a deception to obtain money by false pretences. There are those on this forum who will say that this is old legislation, but it was never repealed, merely incorporated in new legislation. The offence is now in the Theft Act!

 

Perhaps Euro Car Parks ought to be told that??

 

Best wishes to all on CAG

 

Dougal

[-sie-]

Morning All,

 

So I have been reading this thread and just wanted to check something (Yes I am sure this has been asked 100's of times before but just bear with me as I want to be sure)

 

Suppose someone was out with their dog and spotted a nice piece of grass for the dog to run on.

 

Suppose that person then spotted a 'Patrons Only' car park. This car park contains restaurants, pubs and a cinema that are all closed at 7:15 in the morning. The gym is open but more than 3/4 of the car park is empty.

 

Suppose the dog was taken for a quick walk on the grass over from the car park and on return the dog owner found a ticket from Euro Car Parks.

 

Suppose the ticket was for 'Packing up and leaving the site' and demanded £100 in 21 days or £50 in 14 days.

 

Where would that caring dog owner stand? That owner cannot confirm at this time if the car park has CCTV or not.

 

Please advise so if I ever come across someone like this I can advise them....

[DBC]

What they do is ignore. No law has been broken and the driver does not owe the parking company a penny. As for CCTV, what does that prove? It might show a pretty picture of the car, but unless Euro have a database of photographs of everyone in this country, how are they going to identify the driver?

[-sie-]

I was assuming they could use the CCTV to prove who was driving the vehicle at the time and prove it was parked for the period described....?

 

Or are you saying them claiming £100 is wrong in the first place and they are only able to claim for loses which is zero in a free car par even if they can identify the driver?

[DBC]

As I said, how can they prove who was driving the vehicle? see my comment on that non-existent data-base. You are correct in saying that the losses are zero and that is the only amount they can claim.

[letshelp]

I was assuming they could use the CCTV to prove who was driving the vehicle at the time and prove it was parked for the period described....?

 

CCTV does not prove who was drivingunless, as DBC pointed out they know the name and address of everyone and what they look like. i.e. If I post a picture of someone would you know their name and address? They have the same problem.

 

Or are you saying them claiming £100 is wrong in the first place and they are only able to claim for loses which is zero in a free car par even if they can identify the driver?

 

Yes, claiming £100 is wrong unless they can prove that is their actual loss which is especially difficult when they offer a reduction if paid early, and yes they have great problems identifying the driver.

 

regards

[-sie-]

Cool, I will be ignoring them and will update on what happens.

 

They must be sat there watching and waiting. Do they get commission or something?

[Goingforaride]

sie.....yep, ignore...you will get the threatening letters.....but I like the post above.....'guess the threat! I get a different invoice every time!

[-sie-]

Morning all,

 

Recieved my first letter from Control Account PLC this morning.

 

'Filed' it with the letter from Euro

[spikes62]

This is all to do with contract law, with CCTV they cant prove the dog walker actually saw or read the signs ( if there were any ) they will send letters demanding to know who the driver was, tell them your dog was, (Clever doggie) just ignore and file away with the old newspapers. nothing will come of this apart from more letters, it cost this company £2.50 to get the car owners address from the DVLA. Keep parking there knowing it is costing these cowboys money

[Goingforaride]

That's it Sie....nice one. I've had nothing since October. We need to keep this up and spread the word........

[grotbags]

Hi,

 

I received one letter from Euro car parks saying my fine was £70 and would go up to £90. I have now had a phone call to my mums house looking for me and today a letter at my mums from Walker Love who seem to be a sherrifers officers company saying I know owe £95 and they will arrest my wages if I don't pay.I have read all theses threads and thought I was happy t ignore these letters when they came but have not heard of this company being used before and also concerned that they seem to be sending info to my mums and do not want her to have someone appear at her door.

 

Help!!!

[DBC]

I don't know exactly how the law operates in Scotland but I imagine these people cannot "arrest" your wages unless the case goes to court, you lose and then you refuse to pay whatever the judge orders. This sounds like yet another example of a meaningless threat by these people.

[grotbags]

I did think that, and also wondered how they would even get my details as they seem to be sending information to my mums house, but slightly concerned as they seem to be more official sounding than the control accounts company.

Should I reply with the old I am only the RK not driver line (which is true, it was my hubby driving) or should I just ignore them.I really don't want to pay the fine but also scared it keeps going up and up,

[letshelp]

As DBC stated the matter has to go to court first, did they fail to mention that in their letter????

see below:

 

"When a Sheriff or Judge issues his/her judgment (Decree) then the Sheriff Officer or Messenger-at-Arms may be instructed to enforce the Court's decision by way of diligence.

 

Generally, a Charge for payment would be issued allowing the defender/debtor fourteen days to resolve the matter. If they fail to repay the debt or does not come to a suitable arrangement, then a Sheriff Officer or Messenger-at-Arms may be instructed to serve -

• An earnings arrestment
  
• A third party arrestment
  
• A bank arrestment
  

regards

[letshelp]

Ignore them, it is not a fine. The fact they keep putting the sum up with every letter just makes it more unenforceable, relax.

regards

[grotbags]

Thanks for the help, I think I will just ignore them. I was going to write back inviting them to take me to court or to get my mum to send letters back advising not at the address but may just ignore them and hope it goes away.