Parking Control Management invoice for moving house

[lookinforinfo]

You are right if it was a windscreen ticket. It looks as if they didn't think it was a w/s ticket which is why they sent their first one within fourteen days. This would have been correct if it had been taken by a camera and mailed to you.

But with them either way was wrong since they gave it to you on a main road. And if it is a w/s ticjet it has to be affixed before you drive away.

[lordloz]

LookforInfo thank you for help.

 

They can't have it both ways, she photographed the car but then when challenged about as I was loading chattels into van and car I moved the car

 

she crossed to the other side of the street to try and hand me the invoice.

 

I refused to take it so at no time was anything affixed to windscreen.

 

As to the NTK I've only got one I believe

 

Alleged parking was 12.12.20

 

NTK was posted 13.01.21 and give 15.01.21

 

Second letter is the Debt recovery letter dated 17.03.21. That's all so far.

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by lordloz

[lookinforinfo]

If there was no windscreen ticket then the NTK should have arrived within 14 days to be PoFA compliant. If there was a w/s PCN then the NTK should arrive after 25 days which yours did. So they are acting on the pretext that there was a w/s ticket despite the fact that you refused to accept it and you had driven off the relevant land before the ticket could be attached.

OK I understand it. And ihe way it was done  is still wrong.

 

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by lookinforinfo

[dx100uk]

not much to go on there really, if you equate this to how council wardens can operate , once the ticket is written, service does not need to be completed.

if the NTK did arrive after day 29 then pofa is met

[lookinforinfo]

The pcns are compliant but the rule on w/s tickets is that they must be placed on the w/s at the time or handed to the driver when the vehicle is parked. And of course this ticket was not even placed on the w/s  nor was the attempt to hand it over even be on relevant land. But the difficulty is whether the parking attendant will admit to that.

[dx100uk]

not sure if that's ever been tested in court regarding a speculative invoice.

 

and if it ever was, i would expect it to be adjudged the same as Penalty Charge Notices, an existing benchmark. the ticket does not have to be attached nor handed, merely the process of one being 'produced' had gone beyond some point, that point i'm unsure of.

 

[lordloz]

lookforinfo, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that just related to official civil enforcement officers, i.e.  Council Traffic Wardens,  who are employed by an enforcement authority. That is local councils for instance or a private company employed by a council.

 

PCM are a private company trying to obtain payment from a speculative invoice and have no authority to issue PCN's.

 

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

You are right. I am so sorry. Well done for putting me right. I do not know what I was thinking of when I posted that. 

[AndyOrch]

I've unapproved your previous post  lookinforinfo ......save any confusion to users reading this topic.

 

Andy

 

 

.

[lordloz]

I've had another demand letter last week which is their standard nonsense from Trace so won't bother posting it up, however today's development was interesting when I received a text from them......

 

Looking at other posts on here with these clowns that's getting into bordering into data protection/harassment area..... 

 

will keep posting until/if i get the letter to claim but just deciding whether to block or not, my feeling is to leave it open, screenshot all messages and keep if necessary if I have to answer the LTC...... thoughts welcomed 

[honeybee13]

How did they get hold of your mobile number, LL?

 

HB

[lordloz]

that's interesting isn't it......I haven't provided them with anything, no replies at all ....my real life name is unusual so I expect it's not a huge task to find me...but....I find that intriguing that they have started to text me when never entered into any conversations or correspondence with them...

[lookinforinfo]

Block their number on your phone so they cannot text or phone you again.

[lordloz]

tempted to block but also to leave as a record of harassment and possible data protection breach, as I saw in other posts similar had happened 

[lordloz]

further update on my text message from TRACE.... I got one, I now have two.....

I'm glad I haven't blocked them yet....

from a very quick cursory google which I'll look into further, it seems one is annoying but no issue......a second one however, well that begins to go into harrassment. 

One was 26.04.21 the second 07.05.21

 

So a report to the Police and OfCoM as any cause of distress is possible. Suspect little help from Police but OfCoM maybe useful and anyways it all helps to disorient them a bit.

 

I do hope they send another this Friday too......FINAL DEMAND and apparently CASE under review for potential legal action against me.....

[Gick]

Hardly harassment if you hope that they send you another one on Friday !

[lookinforinfo]

Harassment is difficult to prove. They do have the right to pursue you so three letters are unlikely to get you over that threhold. Not sure where GDPR breaches come into it either.

[lordloz]

perhaps you misunderstand, the word hope is not looking forward to it in an emotive anticipated sense, it's to consolidate any harassment report in a technical legal sense

 

it maybe but as i said a quick search shows that 2 texts can be enough to be considered harassment,  

 

A quick summary of Harassment from a law firm site is interesting, I've screenshot the texts & will keep them for future use.

 

Harassment:- in the context of emails and texts messages, a course of conduct in harassment must involve at least two emails or two texts being sent to you, as well as the harasser sending the same email to two people.

 

It doesn't need to be the same message on both occasions but they need to be related and not two isolated incidents. So, for example, if someone sends you a threatening email and later also a threatening text message, which are causing you anxiety, the sender is potentially committing a criminal offence of harassment.

 

source: Cohen Davis Solicitors 

[lookinforinfo]

The difference with your situation and the Solicitors example is that a debt collector is not an harasser they do have a legitimate reason to ask you to pay their client. Here is an article by Citizens Advice-they are not always on the ball but here I feel they are reflecting the attitude of most Judges.

What doesn't count as harassment by a creditor

Not all action that a creditor takes can be called harassment. Creditors are allowed to take reasonable steps to get back the money you owe them. These include:

• sending reminders and demands for payment
• telephoning you to ask for payment
• calling at your home, as long as this is at a reasonable time of the day
• taking court action.

 

You are probably wasting your time going down that road. Concentrate on the errors in PCMs actions.

[lordloz]

i didn't say i was actually going down that road i said it would be in the background for later if necessary.

As I owe them nothing then I'm not their creditor, in addition they have gleaned my number from somewhere & are now sending unsolicited text messages.

I include this for update information only at this time as i now have 3 of them & appears to be 1 a week,last one saying they are now taking legal action 

[lookinforinfo]

They are the creditor which would  make you the debtor if you actually owed them any money. Humour them they are one place below an amoeba.

[FruitSalad1010]

Have you made it clear to the PCM company that you find their repeated contact demanding payment for an unsubstantiated speculative invoice harassing, have you sent them notice to cease and desist contacting you in this way?

 

You're in a bit a of a bind with this one as generally speaking the advice from this site is not to contact them and ignore all communication.

 

By contacting them to order them to cease and desist their method of communication as you consider it harassment you will be confirming they have the right details.

 

What lookinforinfo writes above is interesting, but I wonder at this stage if the learned would consider this is a relationship between a creditor and a debtor?

 

Wouldn't the speculative invoice and thus the debt have to be substantiated perhaps by court judgement before the PCM can claim to be a creditor in this case and thus have their communcation methods considered as reasonable steps.

[dx100uk]

i doubt any say WILL do anything, until/unless you get a letter of claim, then you must respond with a snotty letter.

 

as for a section 10 complaint of harassment, it's not, the creditor/debtor argument has already been addressed in several court cases.

 

if you are getting text msgs report them as spam to 7726.

[lookinforinfo]

FruitSalad1010 the parking company is designated as the creditor in Schedule 4 of PoFA

2(1)In this Schedule—

• “the appropriate national authority” means—(a)

  in relation to relevant land in England, the Secretary of State; and

  [b] in relation to relevant land in Wales, the Welsh Ministers;

• “the creditor” means a person who is for the time being entitled to recover unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle

•  

• I doubt those who drafted the Act envisaged that car parking companies would stretch the meaning of parking charges to the lengths that they have. So they are called creditors despite the fact that many of their spurious invoices do not have  any money owed in them.

[FruitSalad1010]

As has been pointed out in many of these cases, usually it is the landowner not the DCA (in this case PCM) that are entitled to recover unpaid parking charges unless the right is specifically passed on in contract.

 

So while the landowner fits the defintion of "creditor", should the PCM have no legal power to recover unpaid parking charges they are not deemed a creditor and therefore could be held liable under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

 

A rather protracted argument of little practicle value for the time being, but in my opinion noteworthy if it turns out later on PCM had no legal right to act as a creditor.

 

It could be stated that until PCM are proven to have a legal right to act as a creditor then their continued communication will be treated as harassment until indicated otherwise, or that the right is reserved to make a claim under the 1997 act if it later on turns out PCM had no right to act as a creditor.

Edited May 16, 2021 by FruitSalad1010