UKPC parking invoice - tesco Faraday retail park,Coatbank Street, Coatbridge. ML5 3SQ scotland

[buzby]

How could you be parked, when you were there because of your paying passenger? By all means pay it if you're going to beat yourself up over it, but the rest of us have leared to treat these scumbags with the contempt they deserve, and most of us haven't got CCJ's either.

 

I dislike being bullied, others are natural victims. If you fall into to the latter camp, pay up and move on. If you want to stand up - stop communicating with them and if it comes to court, deal with it there.

[Garethuk1981]

Okay i just wanted clarification as i have in a way admitted to being parked there when i wrote my appeal. I was just worried that because i admitted that I was parked there gives them some legal right to instigate further charges, or in some way make my case an exception to others that have got away with it because they did not admit that it was them that were parked there.

 

What i dont understand is, if this is such a big con, why hasnt trading standards closed them down, and if it is fraudulent behavior in that they say it is a PCN when it isnt, how come people havent been fined/jailed in UKPC?

[lamma]

There are plenty of professional lawyers who post on internet forums and who say ignore. But these [problematic] didn't mention that did they ? And there is the Watchdog clip on youtube.

[Al27]

Okay i just wanted clarification as i have in a way admitted to being parked there when i wrote my appeal. I was just worried that because i admitted that I was parked there gives them some legal right to instigate further charges, or in some way make my case an exception to others that have got away with it because they did not admit that it was them that were parked there.

 

You can declare from the rooftops that were the driver, but it doesn't make the charge enforceable. They say "we have a sign/terms and conditions that says 'if you park here you agree to pay £50'". Would you be able to charge the paperboy £50 if you put a sign on your lawn saying "people who use this driveway agree to pay me £50"? Could you then add £100 if the paperboy didn't pay with 14 days? Do you think a small claims court would find in your favour if you then took him to court?

 

Ask you self why these companies don't make it £5000 or £10,000 and take people to court every day?

 

It's a mail [problem], pure and simple.

 

What i dont understand is, if this is such a big con, why hasnt trading standards closed them down, and if it is fraudulent behavior in that they say it is a pcn when it isnt, how come people havent been fined/jailed in UKPC?

 

Because nobody reports them. Lancashire Trading Standards at least mention it on their website:

 

There are however significant areas of concern in relation to the following issues.

 

The use of the initials PCN

PCN is used by most companies as a Parking Charge Notice. Where parking is controlled by a public authority the method of enforcement is by a Penalty Charge Notice. This has a statutory basis under the Road Traffic Act 1991. The use of the same initials is potentially confusing and the connotation of penalty to most people is that it is a sanction that has some official basis or authority. Some companies use a format for the Parking Charge Notice that mimics the format of the Penalty Charge Notice to the extent that this is materially misleading It is arguable that any company that fails to make it clear that the demand for payment is contractual could be:

 

Committing an offence under S40 Administration of Justice Act 1970 (Harassment of Debtors)

Incorporating terms that are unfair under Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

Indicating that the Owner/Keeper of the vehicle is liable for the fee paid

For Penalty Charge Notices issued under Road Traffic Act the keeper of the vehicle is liable. This however does not extend to situations where vehicles are parked on private land. The onus is on the person demanding payment, under the contract, to show that the party to it has agreed. If the keeper was not using the vehicle at the time they cannot be held liable. (One reason clamping was used was the ability, under common law, of the landowner to detain goods which caused damage during trespass.)

 

The demand, if made to the keeper who was not using, is potentially an offence under Malicious Communications Act

[cazcounty]

hello again,

just thought id check in for a bit of a look,

last ukpc fine went away,

this time its gone to debt recoveryplus very quickly (they prob recognised the address lol).

im getting regular letters off drp now,

is the advice still the same - bin!

i know it is but its nice to have the reassurance!

todays was 'notice of intended litigation'

theres still no mention of 'offence' on any letters.

without trawling back trrough the hunded plus pages was debt recovery plus another branch of ukpc if i remember right or has it changed?

ps.

this time i just completley ignored all letters from day 1 from ukpc,

last time i had the usual letter war.

thanks

caz

[cazcounty]

ahhh, sorted

didnt have to sift back too far LOL.

seems theyre getting quicker between letters.

i cant believe i ever got doubts.

haha.

[Sussex Pensioner]

I recently received a ticket for parking in a disabled bay outside a "boarded up" store on industrial estate in Eastbourne. I sent letter next day explaining why I parked there and appealed, received no reply. I contacted UKPC who told me they hadn't received my letter and was advised to send another. I did indeed sent another appeal to which I received the standard reply hence "appeal failed" and demanding £90 in 14 days. I have posted a cheque for original figure of £45. After reading posts on this site think I should stop the cheque. Would this be best action

[crem]

After reading posts on this site think I should stop the cheque. Would this be best action

 

Yes. if you don't, they will probably cash the cheque anyway and still pursue you for further costs. you will also have gone to the top of their hit list as you have fallen for the first bit of their [problem].

[Conniff]

Yes, be there when the bank opens in the morning. Better to pay the bank a fee than these con artists.

[Sussex Pensioner]

Thanks, will be knocking on their door at 9.30, luckily sent it 2nd class

[Al27]

Phew! Very nearly scammed there!

 

Email UKPC and tell them not to cash the cheque as it has been cancelled and no further corespondence will be entered into.

[cazcounty]

yes mate cancel,

ive just had the flurry of 'baliffs coming',taking you to court','last chance' letters etc,etc,ive just had the 'we will accept reduced payment one' LOL.

just keep checking back here when you get your letters for moral support.

[buzby]

This is more complicated.

 

The issue has trancended one of being scammed to one of being the [EDIT]. The OP willingly (!) wrote a cheque in payment of a debt, and issued it. They then changed their mind and cancelled the cheque for no other reason than a change of mind, leaving the standing argument that they intended to deceive the parking company of their rightful money be making the payable instrument invalid. If the cheque is stopped, you'll also be asked to indemnify the bank for any additional costs they may incur due to such action.

 

I'm not supporting the PPC's just warning of the new issue that has arisen, what they do is hardly honourable, but then writing and cancelling a cheque simply because of a change of mind is no better. There is no issue of being criminally defrauded here, the issue of contract is already established, with the OP agreeing to pay by sending the cheque, then reneging on it. The PPC may have other fish to fry and not pursue it, but if they did so, they are in a far far better position to have the judgement go in their favour, than if the cheque was not written in the first place.

Edited June 21, 2010 by buzby

[lamma]

I agree, it is possible to sue on the cheque.

[Al27]

If you inform them beforehand that the cheque is no longer valid then that would change the situation IMO. It's not a case of trying to trick them into cashing a cheque that won't be honoured if you tell them.

 

Of course, if they want to sue they would be suing on the basis that the charge is valid, which is highly unlikely as we know. You can of course, sue to get your money back on payment already made due to all the issues of a PPC 'parking charge', so I don't see any problem.

 

I don't think this is a case of just 'changing your mind'. It's a case of being advised that you have been duped into paying a sum due to the deceptive nature of the other party.

 

The situation may be different if they handed out ordinary invoices like any other company, but it's not the case here.

 

I know we've had a little disagreement on a couple of these points before Raymond

 

But at the end of the day, cancelling the cheque and informing them is 100% the right thing to do.

[Sussex Pensioner]

Have stopped the cheque and sent them two emails stating " please do not present the cheque at your bank as I have taken advice and cancelled the cheque" Thanks all for your support

[Al27]

Top job!

 

Look forward to some threatening junkmail, but stay firm and ignore.

[rickyd]

you do realise that they will still pay the cheque into their account? This adds a certain piquancy to the tale as they will willingly ignore the letter telling them not to, on the basis that they have won. The reward for you is knowing that their hopes will have been raised at the thought of getting one over on you only to find later that they haven't! (tee hee!)

[Al27]

No problem with Met: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/242110-met-parking-cancelled-cheque.html

[millipede]

Hi. I am new to the forum and subscribed for two reasons. Firstly to share success story and secondly to garner support for either a class action against UKPC or support in efforts to have their activities regulated. I with a friend am in the process of putting together evidence to approach our respective MP's to put forward motions in parliament.

 

I am sure many subscribers to the forum share the experience of being fined for parking in a residential parking spot WHILST CLEARLY DISPLAYING A VALID PERMIT. This happened twice within the space of about a week much to my utter amazement - the permit was in exactly the same place. It had been placed on the back ledge as I was parked up against a wall. Again, as with many other subscribers, the photographs were strategically taken and the permit was not visible.

 

I ignored the fines and started to receive the the perfunctory debt collector's letters, each one demanding an increasing payment. I made the rookie mistake of engaging with them and wrote a two page email in response spelling out why UKPC had no case. I am a solicitor and, frankly, UKPC's evidence was shockingly poor and yet it continued to pursue me. I even threatened to sue UKPC for wasting my time.

 

Eventually, after receiving another set of debt collector's letters, I wrote a two line email back demanding that UKPC either issue proceedings or withdraw its claims.

 

The claims were promptly withdrawn and the "fines" retracted.

 

My suggestion to everyone is if a fine has been improperly issued, don't waste time fighting these clowns. Write back to them immediately requesting them to either issue a claim form or withdraw the fines. You will save yourself a lot of stress.

 

That all said, there is no social, moral or legal justification for UKPC to bully the public into paying fines which have NO LEGAL BASIS. Contractual penalties are NOT enforceable under English law (the so-called "rule against penalties)! The claimant must show either that the penalty is a reasonable pre-estimate of its losses which I am sure UKPC would struggle to do considering it is paid to monitor parking, or prove actual damages.

 

A number of postings have cited a recent county court judgment where a UKPC claim was thrown out of court based on the rule against penalties. Some of these postings should be treated with caution, because where it can be shown that you were unlawfully parked, it is still open for UKPC to sue you for its actual damages. This could expose you to some not insignificant legal costs. If you were unlawfully parked, consider paying first and appealing later.

 

I am bitterly angry about the way I was treated and the sense I get from this forum is that there are many others like me. If you have made it this far and wish to participate in fighting back to prevent this type of thing happening to others, then please reply to this posting or send me a message. I am still strongly considering suing UKPC for compensation for the distress and inconvenience its greed and unscupulous behaviour caused. It put severe strain on a very good friendship and wasted the precious little spare time I have.

 

As I said at the beginning, the options are to use a class action against UKPC and to petition for regulation of private parking agencies.

 

Thanks for reading.

[kiptower]

FINES what FINES they cannot issue a fine

 

then you say pay and appeal , WRONG never do that

 

and you could be held for their losses , what loss £1 an hour when you were parked . or even when its a free car park they have no loss

 

"UNLAWFULLY PARKED" CANNOT APPLY in a private car park full stop

 

you advice may be in good faith BUT it really need re-wording

[HSBCrusher]

have a read around millipede, I am sure you will find a lot of information you will find interesting

[crem]

Pay and appeal???? You willnever ever see a penny of your money back if you do this!!

 

Are you sure you're really a solicitor?

[millipede]

FINES what FINES they cannot issue a fine

 

then you say pay and appeal , WRONG never do that

 

and you could be held for their losses , what loss £1 an hour when you were parked . or even when its a free car park they have no loss

 

"UNLAWFULLY PARKED" CANNOT APPLY in a private car park full stop

 

you advice may be in good faith BUT it really need re-wording

 

hi

 

Thanks - points mostly taken but keep in mind the purpose of my posting was to share an experience rather than give advice.

 

What I really want out of this is some peer support to take on UKPC.

 

Let me know if this is something anyone is interested in.

 

M

[buzby]

Can't be. English law doesn't allow for 'class actions' either. Payment is an admission, so no way José - perhaps well meaning, but not good advice.