Letters To Private Parking Companies... A suggestion

[Andy7807]

Parking in a superstore car park spending money in their store, possibly having something to eat in their cafe and taking more than two hours to get a 'penalty fine' of 40-70 quid is fair is it? Then worrying the life out of people, threatening them with CCJ's and poor credit ratings etc is acceptable? That is what most people on here are fighting against.

[Barnsley Boy]

Ranger! - as in Ranger Services, the company that does all the DVLA access requests for PPCs not "respectable" enough to have their own?

[Al27]

A number of people have said they think the charges are unreasonable because they "just" crossed the street to post a letter, or they "just" met a friend and went for a coffee for an hour ... Where do we draw the line? A 15 min grace period? Why not a 4 hour grace period? Why should the freeholder even care about a grace period because you the driver is being lazy?

 

I agree that the fees may seem high, but then how else could they act as a deterent?

 

I don't buy the excuse that "oh the lot was empty why shouldn't I park there?" I could say the same about your living room while you're out shopping. Lot's of space, can I help myself?

 

Drivers need to be more considerate. It seems from this forum that everyone thinks they have an excuse to get away with illegal parking. It's the free-rider syndrome. Grow up.

 

There's no signs in the street saying don't take heroin, but that doesn't make it ok, does it? If it says staff only and you're not staff -- duh!

 

And, no, I don't work for a parking company.

 

For a start, it's not 'illegal' parking. No offence is committed.

 

Secondly, we're not here to judge on the right or wrongs. We're here to tell people of the legality of such charges. The fact that private companies have no powers in law to issue fines is well established. Nobody here is going to tell someone to pay an unenforceable invoice because they 'deserve it'. That's not the point.

 

With posts like this, you're just swimming against the tide. If you're just here to preach, it's going to get very tiresome.

[lamma]

Seems an opportune moment to tell a story.

 

At one of our 'regular companies' the staff turned up one day to find twenty odd cars had filled their car park. They were not happy but there was of course nothing they could do about it all. So they all had to park on the street. Perhaps it was their grumpiness or perhaps it was just a complete lack of understanding of the signs and regulations that exist to cover 'real' parking. Whatever the reason they parked in breach of real regulations. Even better a short while later a 'real' warden/CEO came along and gave real PCNs to all of them. Who knows, someone may have called the council and complained

[ceebee]

Perhaps ranger you should work for a PPC you seem to have the right attitude for it.

[TheRanger]

Perhaps ranger you should work for a PPC you seem to have the right attitude for it.

 

don't get me wrong, i can't stand the rogues and i've had my fair share of run-ins with them, i can assure you.

 

but that still doesn't mean you should park on other people's private land without their consent, does it?

Edited August 24, 2008 by TheRanger

[TheRanger]

Parking in a superstore car park spending money in their store, possibly having something to eat in their cafe and taking more than two hours to get a 'penalty fine' of 40-70 quid is fair is it? Then worrying the life out of people, threatening them with CCJ's and poor credit ratings etc is acceptable? That is what most people on here are fighting against.

 

If the superstore offers two hour free parking to customers (however that works, ticket, token, show receipt etc) then no, of course it's not fair and you have to fight it.

 

but many complainers on this board openly admit that they *knew* that they should not park where they were but took the chance anyway. that's just lazy and inconsiderate.

 

my mum's got a disabled badge by the way. it's a huge hassle for her when people park in the disabled bays in carparks etc.

 

p.s. to Al27: "illegal" = trespassing

Edited August 24, 2008 by TheRanger

[crem]

my mum's got a disabled badge by the way. it's a huge hassle for her when people park in the disabled bays in carparks etc.

 

Whilst I sympathise with your mother having a blue badge and not being able to park in a disabled bay at all times, it has been pointed out many times on these boards that the blue badge is provided by the COUNCIL for use in COUNCIL carparks and PUBLIC HIGHWAYS for concessionary parking. They are not issued for use, nor are they valid in private carparks.

 

It is worth noting also that users of blue badges probably cause more obstruction and conjestion on public roads by parking in inconvenient and inconsiderate places simply "coz they can".

[lamma]

when there is an invitation to treat - which there is in retail car parks - there is no trespass.

Now if they had big No Entry and Private Property Keep Out sign then trespass would come in.

Trespass (if it exists) is a tort and so is not forbidden by law or statute and so is not 'illegal'. Calling it illegal is what the PPCs do, just one of the many misrepresentations they make.

 

Signs that say 'trespassers will be prosecuted' are of course nonsense as it is only a tort as is well known - the reasons are explained above.

 

Aggravated trespass is different but we are not talking about that at all - unless we are taking about the actions of certain clampers.

[andreaarty]

hello can you help??

 

My sister sent one of the basic reply letters to the company who gave her a ticket after parking 5 mins longer than the designated time in Tesco. This was the reply they sent to her:

 

"thank you for your letter which appears to be a standard reply, copies of which we have seen previously. If you are denying that you were the driver, you may forward the full name and address of the driver and we will re-issue this notice. Until the requested information is received, this PNC will remain open in your name and be processed accordingly".

 

Any ideas what to do now?

 

Thanks

[Al27]

Ignore them.

 

They can issue or reissue notices until the cows come home.

 

Just keep all further letters in a drawer and they will go away after 5 or 6 more.

 

Their reply is a bit of an oxymoron by the way - they are inferring the driver is 'liable', but if they fail to get any information about them, then they will make you, the owner 'liable'.

[andreaarty]

Hi thanks for your reply

 

Any ideas which letter to reply to them with?

 

I really appreciate your help

[Al27]

Don't reply.

 

Personally I wouldn't have bothered in the first place. They are not going to cancel the 'fine', whatever you do. This is a powerless private company who's sole purpose is to intimidate people into paying money they are under no obligation to pay.

 

The only way they will disappear is when they give up after you ignore all their letters.

[andreaarty]

wont they threaten to take her to court

[lamma]

they will make all kinds of rubbish statements to trick/coerce/con someone it paying when they actually have no valid cause tot receive payment that is the nature of their 'business' - the key word is rubbish. have a look at the private parking stickies.

[loza]

Hi Guys, am new to this site but I too have been subject to a Private Parking Ticket! Hope you can help.

I received a parking ticket in a retail park from Excel parking. I read through the helpful advice on this website and ignored the ticket. They subsequently sent me a letter saying that I hadnt paid within the given period and was now subject of a fine of £100 + court and solicitors fees if this went to court.

I sent them the letter as suggested by Bernie the Bolt and it read:

 

Dear Sirs,

Re: Your letter dated XXXXXXXX, Reference XXXXXXXX.

I acknowledge receipt of your captioned letter. It seems that you have got my details from the DVLA and I confirm I am the keeper of the vehicle in question. You need to take this matter up with the driver concerned.

In the meantime I absolutely deny your claim that the amount claimed, or any amount at all, is due to you from me.

Yours faithfully

I have today received a reply from Excel to this letter stating that I must provide them with the details of the driver according to paragraph 4.2 of the Pre-Action Protocol before 5th September to aviod further preceedings.

 

I have never heard of this protocol being referenced in any of the posts on this thread and I am confused as to whether it applies or not. Also, I am right in thinking that as this is a civil matter is it not covered in the RTA, section 172 and I have no obligation to provide these details?

 

I was also going to mention in my reply to them that this is causing me increased stress and anxiety and quote Section 40 and the Protection from Harrassment Act.

 

Please can someone help me and advise me of the approach I should take.

 

Many Thanks

Loza

[abonae]

...

I have today received a reply from Excel to this letter stating that I must provide them with the details of the driver according to paragraph 4.2 of the Pre-Action Protocol before 5th September to aviod further preceedings.

...

All I can see for section 4.2 is:

4.2 Parties to a potential dispute should follow a reasonable procedure, suitable to their particular circumstances, which is intended to avoid litigation. The procedure should not be regarded as a prelude to inevitable litigation. It should normally include –

(a)the claimant writing to give details of the claim;

(b)the defendant acknowledging the claim letter promptly;

©the defendant giving within a reasonable time a detailed written response; and

(d)the parties conducting genuine and reasonable negotiations with a view to settling the claim economically and without court proceedings.

 

which doesn't seem to have any real relevance to their point. The identity of the driver is for them to prove, not for you to disprove. I'm not aware of any way they can force you to name the driver. In addition, I think the CPRs allow you to respond to a part of a claim by insisting that they prove it. In particular:

16.5 (1)In his defence, the defendant must state –

(a)which of the allegations in the particulars of claim he denies;

(b)which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the claimant to prove; and

©which allegations he admits

 

 

Sounds like increasingly desperate stuff from them. Hang tight.

 

Abo

[crem]

Best advise for now would probably be to completely ignore them from now on. There is no requirement in law for you to name the driver and it will be interesting to see how they justifed that to a magistrate. (not that we will ever find out coz it won't get to court)

[lamma]

also see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/119802-private-parking-tickets-template-4.html#post1682909 which is a response to what seems to be a duplicate.

[pin1onu]

Hi Guys, am new to this site but I too have been subject to a Private Parking Ticket! Hope you can help.

I received a parking ticket in a retail park from Excel parking. I read through the helpful advice on this website and ignored the ticket. They subsequently sent me a letter saying that I hadnt paid within the given period and was now subject of a fine of £100 + court and solicitors fees if this went to court.

I sent them the letter as suggested by Bernie the Bolt and it read:

 

Dear Sirs,

Re: Your letter dated XXXXXXXX, Reference XXXXXXXX.

I acknowledge receipt of your captioned letter. It seems that you have got my details from the DVLA and I confirm I am the keeper of the vehicle in question. You need to take this matter up with the driver concerned.

In the meantime I absolutely deny your claim that the amount claimed, or any amount at all, is due to you from me.

Yours faithfully

I have today received a reply from Excel to this letter stating that I must provide them with the details of the driver according to paragraph 4.2 of the Pre-Action Protocol before 5th September to aviod further preceedings.

 

I have never heard of this protocol being referenced in any of the posts on this thread and I am confused as to whether it applies or not. Also, I am right in thinking that as this is a civil matter is it not covered in the RTA, section 172 and I have no obligation to provide these details?

 

I was also going to mention in my reply to them that this is causing me increased stress and anxiety and quote Section 40 and the Protection from Harrassment Act.

 

Please can someone help me and advise me of the approach I should take.

 

Many Thanks

Loza

They are talking out their backsides. You are right in your thinking. This is a civil matter and the onus is for them to prove their case. You are under no obligation to name the drive. The template letters actually cover this.

Ask them to name the statute/relevant case law that requires you to.

 

You could just ignore them as they haven't proved anything or substantiated their claim. Neither did you agree to anything in their pre-action protocol.

 

As you've responded previously I'd send the following or one like it recorded delivery and then ignore anything else.

 

----

 

Dear Sir,

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated dd/mm/yyyy.

 

You have claimed that I am obliged to name the driver under your Pre-action Protocol. I dispute this assertation. I would ask you to provide relevant reference to statute law or citation to case law to back up your claim that I have to provide you with this information.

 

This alleged debt therefore remains disputed by me. Save for supplying the evidence referred to above I must ask you to cease and desist correspondence with me unless it is to close the matter.

 

Other than as described above, any further correspondence from you or any other party in relation to this matter may result in a complaint to the authorities under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 and the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

yours faithfully

 

-----

[lamma]

AGrre. I would change that last paragraph though to "Other than as described above, any further correspondence from you or any other party in relation to this matter may result in a complaint to the authorities under, inter alia, the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 and the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008." Believe me, the big players are all running scared of those consumer regs.

[loza]

Thanks to you both for you advice. So very very helpful. Lets hope this shuts them up. We can beat these companies together!!!!

Will let you know how it goes.

[andreaarty]

Thanks a squillion I think my sister will be really happy about this

 

the letter she wrote was this:-

 

I acknowledge receipt of your captioned letter. It seems that you have got my details from the DVLA and I confirm I am the keeper of the vehicle in question. You need to take this matter up with the driver concerned.

 

In the meantime I absolutely deny your claim that the amount claimed, or any amount at all, is due to you from me.

 

Yours faithfully

 

The reply she got was this:

 

Thank you for your letter which appears to be a standard reply, copies of which we have seen previously. If you are denying that you were the driver, you may forward the full name and address of the driver and we will re-issue this notice. Until the requested information is received, this PNC will remain open in your name and be processed accordingly.

 

Do you think it would be a good idea to reply like this:

 

Dear Sir,

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated dd/mm/yyyy.

 

You have claimed that I am obliged to name the driver, I dispute this assertation. I would ask you to provide relevant reference to statute law or citation to case law to back up your claim that I have to provide you with this information.

 

This alleged debt therefore remains disputed by me. Save for supplying the evidence referred to above I must ask you to cease and desist correspondence with me unless it is to close the matter.

 

Other than as described above, any further correspondence from you or any other party in relation to this matter may result in a complaint to the authorities under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 and the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

yours faithfully

 

Thanks!

[andreaarty]

The 'Thanks!' was not to them it was to you

[safepark]

I am writing on behalf of a work colleague, who in conversation we discussed unlawful parking tickets. It seems she has also becaome prey and without taking any advice, she has ignored all letters. She has had court papers arrive and has rang the court to see if they are genuine and they have confirmed that they are.

 

What now?

 

She is happy to represent herself, but wonders what her defence would be for parking in a disabled spot without a blue badge, despite the fact she had her father with her at the time who had a bad case of Gout and couldnt walk, more like hobble. Terrential rain and wind etc, but no blue badge. They are saying its trespass!