Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: 8vaibhav on July 16, 2024, 07:13:06 pm

Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: 8vaibhav on July 17, 2024, 04:38:08 pm
Thanks.

I suggest you read your agreement again because your quoted conditions are pretty standard but not the ones which deal with additional charges.

...and

In retrospect it may just be for customers, my cousin only moved there in 2024 so he maynot even know himself. He assumed it was free.

Sounds a little warning bell...does your cousin have a car and if so do they use this car park and did they remember to change their V5C address with DVLA when they moved? I'd hate to think that they have a pile of unanswered PCNs etc. on a mat where they lived!

I have asked them to share the exact letter again but I don't think it's very complicated. Checkout their helppage, says the same thing: https://octopusev.com/help/fines-and-parking-charge-notices

My Cousin doens't have a car, I think doesn't even have a license, so he is safe, his assumption was based on never seeing anyone pay.
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: H C Andersen on July 17, 2024, 04:13:48 pm
Thanks.

I suggest you read your agreement again because your quoted conditions are pretty standard but not the ones which deal with additional charges.

...and

In retrospect it may just be for customers, my cousin only moved there in 2024 so he maynot even know himself. He assumed it was free.

Sounds a little warning bell...does your cousin have a car and if so do they use this car park and did they remember to change their V5C address with DVLA when they moved? I'd hate to think that they have a pile of unanswered PCNs etc. on a mat where they lived!
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: 8vaibhav on July 17, 2024, 02:36:08 pm
I suggest you talk to your cousin. If this car park accommodates drivers other than simply Morrisons, whose opening hours are exactly the same as those on the board, then ask them how. If it doesn't, then it's not intended for visitors, it's for customers.

In retrospect it may just be for customers, my cousin only moved there in 2024 so he maynot even know himself. He assumed it was free.

Also, if you have the time I suggest that you read this(skip the debate about penalties and the second case and just read Beavis) and then think whether CRA provides a defence. Their Lordships didn't think so. Para. 107 has clear parallels with your situation and the test of 'fairness' was met because there must clearly be requirement for PE (coincidentally the same company as in your case) to ensure that drivers do not overstay the 2-hour limit because it seems it's a shoppers' car park.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html&query=(Beavis)
Thanks for sharing, so the courts did rule in favor of ParkingEye, though in this case there is no mention of "Tariffs apply outside these hours" which clearly caused me all the confusion. I can only wonder if that would make any difference.


And something you've not mentioned is your lease company. It's pretty standard practice for these to charge hirers a fee for their handling costs i.e. challenging PCNs, are you sure they didn't here or wouldn't if they had to deal with others?
They have told, they are happy to forward notices such as this for free as much as I understand. This is what they stated at the start of the lease (any admin fee etc would only be charged if they have to do more work than forwarding letters and sharing information.)

If you do get any fines or tickets, these will come through to us first as we are the registered owners of the car. We typically transfer the fines to drivers, who will then have the option to pay or appeal the fine if needs be. If we aren't able to transfer the fine, we may have to pay it on your behalf, and will be in touch if this is the case.
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: H C Andersen on July 17, 2024, 02:03:06 pm
I suggest you talk to your cousin. If this car park accommodates drivers other than simply Morrisons, whose opening hours are exactly the same as those on the board, then ask them how. If it doesn't, then it's not intended for visitors, it's for customers.

Also, if you have the time I suggest that you read this(skip the debate about penalties and the second case and just read Beavis) and then think whether CRA provides a defence. Their Lordships didn't think so. Para. 107 has clear parallels with your situation and the test of 'fairness' was met because there must clearly be requirement for PE (coincidentally the same company as in your case) to ensure that drivers do not overstay the 2-hour limit because it seems it's a shoppers' car park.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html&query=(Beavis)

And something you've not mentioned is your lease company. It's pretty standard practice for these to charge hirers a fee for their handling costs i.e. challenging PCNs, are you sure they didn't here or wouldn't if they had to deal with others?
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: 8vaibhav on July 17, 2024, 01:15:58 pm
WOW!
Thanks so much.

That also explains the "upto 9 hours" bit, 10pm to 7am is indeed 9 hours.
So basically, even if I had paid £15 on the machine or £15.20 on the PayByPhone they would still have sent me this PCN. Basically saying, I just can't park here at all. That is definitely new information for me.

I did try to email Morrisons to get it quashed but they said landlord/ParkingEye manage this.

My cousin lives in this building above Morrisons, essentially only way to avoid is to leave every two-hours and return if I am doing longer stays there. Is that correct?

And now knowing their PCN format, worst case I would deny sharing driver details and try to make these go away like that.

Very useful board, I did try to google earlier but only moneysavingexpert showed up, I am sure the guys there are experts as well but they were discouraging new posts so much that I ended up not asking. Many thanks for all replies from hero users and moderator.

I would wait for now, and hope for the best, having spent so much time understanding this, I will see how far they stretch, if I hear anything after "Final Notice" I will post here for advice. Thanks again.
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: DWMB2 on July 17, 2024, 12:58:38 pm
I haven't helped things by wrongly thinking you had parked during the "Overnight Parking" period, so I do apologise for that.

Here's the sign with some mark-up:
(https://i.imgur.com/YdVX7Em.jpeg)

Essentially, different rules apply at different times. First:

2 Hours Max stay
During the times indicated (Mon-Sat: 7am-10pm, Sun/Bank Hol: 11am-5pm), parking is free, but drivers may only park for 2 hours or less.

Second:

Tariffs apply outside of these times
If you park outside those times, the 2 hour max stay does not apply, but, there is a tariff to park, which is £15 for up to 9 hours.

Your car was parked from 18:00 to 21:01, on Saturday 16th March. This was during the times indicated on the signage, when the maximum stay was 2 hours. You breached this term by staying for longer than 2 hours, contrary to the advertised terms. Therefore, the following applies:

Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100

You can seek to argue that the signage doesn't make this clear - the hurdle you will need to overcome is that the bit I have highlighted in red does make fairly clear that between 7am-10pm Monday-Saturday, you may only stay for 2 hours. You could try to argue that "Tariffs apply outside of these times" could be interpreted to mean that tariffs apply if you park longer than 2 hours - whether a judge would agree with that I don't know.
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: 8vaibhav on July 17, 2024, 12:44:23 pm
I am surprised a non-working Parking Machine isn't excuse enough. I mean seriously!
The problem is, as has now been established, the signage indicates that during the times you were there, you are only allowed to stay for 2 hours - there is not an option to pay to extend your time beyond this, and if you exceed the maximum stay, you incur a parking charge of £100. Even if the parking machine had been working, you wouldn't have been able to pay anything, as parking was free at the time, but only for up to 2 hours.

Wait.. What? This is thoroughly confusing, why wouldn't I have been able to pay when I had reasonable idea that I will exceed 2 hours. In fact, while leaving I knew exactly the time I had spent and did spend effort to try and pay on the machine, would have certainly paid if it was working, why do you say I wouldn't have been able to. Sorry, I am so confused.
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: DWMB2 on July 17, 2024, 12:39:13 pm
I am surprised a non-working Parking Machine isn't excuse enough. I mean seriously!
The problem is, as has now been established, the signage indicates that during the times you were there, you are only allowed to stay for 2 hours - there is not an option to pay to extend your time beyond this, and if you exceed the maximum stay, you incur a parking charge of £100. Even if the parking machine had been working, you wouldn't have been able to pay anything, as parking was free at the time, but only for up to 2 hours.

 
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: 8vaibhav on July 17, 2024, 12:19:04 pm
In which case the remaining argument (aside from any CRA ones as referred to by b789 above) would be that the signage wasn't clear - which I'm not sure is the strongest.

Thanks much, what about no option to pay later after realizing error and inaccessible zombi-ness if I tried contacting ParkingEye BEFORE receiving PCN.

I am surprised a non-working Parking Machine isn't excuse enough. I mean seriously!

You say other PCN isn't related but the delay in that one reaching me essentially caused the 2nd identitical incident, I suppose no legal standing on this one.
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: DWMB2 on July 17, 2024, 12:13:45 pm
I think you'll find that option only applies "out of hours" ie after 10pm
the OP was there before that and therefore could not use the overnight option
Quite right - my mistake, was looking at the wrong month in my calendar and thought it was a Sunday!

In which case the remaining argument (aside from any CRA ones as referred to by b789 above) would be that the signage wasn't clear - which I'm not sure is the strongest.
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: b789 on July 17, 2024, 12:01:43 pm
So, if you are aggrieved enough to want to fight this, you can ignore the POPLA decision and wait and see if/when they try to take you to court for this alleged debt.

You can argue the CRA 2015 and ask a judge to decide whether you owe the PPC a debt or not.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents)

In particular, have a look at Chapter 4 and Part 2 "Unfair Terms". Loads of juicy stuff in there for a defence.
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: 8vaibhav on July 17, 2024, 11:07:53 am
It's hard to advise on your chances really, courts aren't always predictable. I can't see any "slam dunk" defences - I think the main thing you would need to clarify is why no payment was made via the PayByPhone app. You mention that it was confusing, but from your opening post it seems like you found an option that would have allowed you to pay the tariff for one overnight stay:
Quote
It was asking £15.20

Hello, yes so getting to the nuts and bolts of this. Parking was free for 2hours and "overnight charges" apply it said if longer than 2. Sure.. but then the signage (shared earlier in the thread) also says "Upto 9 hours £15.00". So overnight charges apply but that same is less than 9 hours somehow, I suppose they would send PCN if someone paid and exceeded 9 hours. I found it very confusing that overnight is 9hours.

Then on PayByPhone App, it didn't mention this 9 hour limit at all, it allowed to select multiple days, say I selected "2 days" what would it mean if only 9 hours is allowed in one stretch. I just thought I better not use the App and pay on the machine but turns out that was "out of service" which POPLA agrees to also but doesn't seems to make a different to their decision.

Also, may I add, when I received the first PCN, I thought I should pay for the 2nd incident on a delayed basis, but there was no option to do the same, only option was to wait for 2nd PCN..
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: mickR on July 17, 2024, 10:52:42 am
but from your opening post it seems like you found an option that would have allowed you to pay the tariff for one overnight stay:
Quote
It was asking £15.20

I think you'll find that option only applies "out of hours" ie after 10pm
the OP was there before that and therefore could not use the overnight option

Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: DWMB2 on July 17, 2024, 10:44:44 am
2nd more relevant question, based on the broken parking machine, confusing PayByPhone screenshot and signage and having paid £60 on one PCN, am I likely to win if this were perused further by ParkingEye? (I definitely expect they will send all possible automated letters at the very least)
The fact you have paid a different PCN is of no relevance to this one. Two separate parking events = two separate contracts allegedly formed.

It's hard to advise on your chances really, courts aren't always predictable. I can't see any "slam dunk" defences - I think the main thing you would need to clarify is why no payment was made via the PayByPhone app. You mention that it was confusing, but from your opening post it seems like you found an option that would have allowed you to pay the tariff for one overnight stay:
Quote
It was asking £15.20
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: The Rookie on July 17, 2024, 10:33:50 am
I know these Operators mostly act as savages trying earns money of innocents but doesn't this keeper/driver anomaly, leave room for system-abuse, as in should one NEVER pay parking charges if they have some free time to challenge any PCNs which may come up?
There is statute (Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) that permits parking companies to hold keepers liable so
Quote
doesn't this keeper/driver anomaly, leave room for system-abuse, as in should one NEVER pay parking charges
Isn't true, as it's not NEVER.

However there are occasions (and hire/lease/fleet cars are a common one) where the parking companies fail to meet the requirements of PoFA so can only hold the driver liable.  That failure is wholly within their own powers to fix but they chose not to, probably as most people, like you were, are ignorant of both contract law (where ONLY the driver could be liable - never the keeper*) and PoFA (allowing the transfer of liability under STRICT regulation) and 'give up' their legal protections naively.

Before PoFA was enacted ONLY the driver could be liable, yet circa 2/3's of people just paid the invoices regardless.

*Private parking notices fall under contract law, the parking company offer a parking contract (on the signs) the driver can chose to accept that contract 'by performance' (the act of parking) or decline (by leaving) the keeper is a complete stranger to that and would have no liability at all, ever. This, as I said was changed (and is a specific and unique modification to contract law for parking) by PoFA.
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: 8vaibhav on July 17, 2024, 10:05:00 am
So, OP identified themself to be the driver according to the POPLA assessor. No need to discuss PoFA as it is not in play. OP as known driver is liable.

Wasted golden ticket. OP now has to decide whether to fight this or cave in.

Thanks for all the help, do feel like an idiot getting tricked. But I got two questions, I know these Operators mostly act as savages trying earns money of innocents but doesn't this keeper/driver anomaly, leave room for system-abuse, as in should one NEVER pay parking charges if they have some free time to challenge any PCNs which may come up?

2nd more relevant question, based on the broken parking machine, confusing PayByPhone screenshot and signage and having paid £60 on one PCN, am I likely to win if this were perused further by ParkingEye? (I definitely expect they will send all possible automated letters at the very least)
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: b789 on July 17, 2024, 12:59:25 am
So, OP identified themself to be the driver according to the POPLA assessor. No need to discuss PoFA as it is not in play. OP as known driver is liable.

Wasted golden ticket. OP now has to decide whether to fight this or cave in.
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: 8vaibhav on July 16, 2024, 11:22:07 pm
Other images:

Final Notice:
(https://imgur.com/yIGo0K8.jpg)

POPLA decision:
(https://imgur.com/1N35egn.jpg)
(https://imgur.com/Vy3ZDIc.jpg)

Signage:
(https://imgur.com/ZO8qLdG.jpg)

Broken Machine:
(https://imgur.com/wFb8u7P.jpg)

PayByPhone screenhot:
(https://imgur.com/h8wTFsA.jpg)
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: 8vaibhav on July 16, 2024, 11:03:48 pm
Out of interest, what did you receive from ParkingEye, did they describe it as a Notice to Hirer?

Please see initial letter, it's addressed in my name to my address (erased particulars before uploading)
Front:
(https://i.imgur.com/HXdTc9t.jpg)

Back:
(https://imgur.com/Yu9QBNc.jpg)
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: DWMB2 on July 16, 2024, 09:04:27 pm
Not voluntarily providing information you are under no obligation to provide is not lying.

Quote
I suppose you are saying that in theory we can't 100% rule out that someone else temperoarily drove the car without my knowledge and put the car back in my parking spot.
We're not saying that - you know who was driving, but ParkingEye don't, and you were under no obligation to tell them, and you can decline to tell them without having to lie. As a daft example to illustrate the point: I know my credit card number, but I can refuse to tell you what it is without lying.

Out of interest, what did you receive from ParkingEye, did they describe it as a Notice to Hirer?

Anyway, back to the bones of the case - in anticipation of potential court action, it would be wise to ensure you have gathered any evidence you might need to rely on, such as photographs of the car park signage detailing the terms and conditions, and any screenshots of the defective website you mentioned.

Quote
***UNABLE TO UPLOAD ANY ATTACHMENTS, The upload folder is full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator.***
You'll need to use a third party site like Imgur to upload any photos - there's a guide to doing this here: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: 8vaibhav on July 16, 2024, 08:51:22 pm
Many thanks again for quick and brilliant responses.
However, Octopus (The keeper) definitely know who the driver is, it's part of my agreement/insurance that NOBODY but me is allowed to drive.

I suppose you are saying that in theory we can't 100% rule out that someone else temperoarily drove the car without my knowledge and put the car back in my parking spot. In which case, nobody is lying, though clearly this feels like it..
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: b789 on July 16, 2024, 08:39:11 pm
No one has said that you must lie and declare that the driver is unknown. All you have to admit to is that you are the Hirer (true) and that you are not legally obliged to identify the driver (true).

Neither Octopus (the keeper) nor the PPC know the identity of the driver. Octopus will have simply transferred liability from them, the keeper to the you, the Hirer. Only you, the Hirer could identify the driver and, as you are under no legal obligation to do so, you shouldn't, inadvertently or otherwise.

The driver is always liable but if the driver is unknown, the PPC is required to fully comply with the strict requirements if they want to transfer the liability from the driver to to the Hirer. I have never yet seen any PPC fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA to be able to transfer that liability. If they are unable to transfer the liability, they have nowhere to go with this. The burden of proof is on the operator to prove who the driver was. They are not allowed to assume nor infer that that the Hirer must also be the driver. There are persuasive appellate law cases to back that up.

NtK = Notice to Keeper
NtH = Notice to Hirer
PoFA = Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted). This is the law that overturned centuries of common law where liability for a breach of contract could be transferred to someone who was not a party to that contract.
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: 8vaibhav on July 16, 2024, 08:30:21 pm
Thanks so much for response.

I am not sure I could have stated the "driver unknown" premise. Octopus EV who are the owners of my car seemed to indicate that if I don't reach to ParkingEye myself, they will settle any fines and then bill me later for it. I have lost the exact communication from them sadly so not 100% sure now. It just didn't occur to me it was posible to claim unknown driver.

The conditions of my lease and linked insurance state that I am the only allowed driver and Ocotopus shared my details with ParkingEye, are you sure I could still claim "unkown driver"? (asking for next time)

Also kindly advise what do these shortforms mean?
1. PE  (I am guessing ParkingEye in this case)
2. NtH (I am guessing Notice to Hirer??)
3. PoFA (No clue about this one)

About the present case, thanks so much, I will update in this thread if I get further communication.

Thanks,
Vaibhav
Title: Re: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: b789 on July 16, 2024, 07:56:29 pm
What a pity you didn't come here first before appealing and blowing your best and guaranteed chance to get this cancelled at the first hurdle. I am assuming that you, the Hirer (lessee) of the vehicle identified the driver.

In all Hire/leased vehicle cases, the PPC will fail to fully comply with the requirements of PoFA and so be unable to hold the known Hirer (lessee) liable for the charge. As long as the Hirer does not identify the unknown driver and there is no legal obligation on the Hirer to do so, then the PPC has nowhere to run with this.

The unknown driver is always liable. The keeper (Hire/lease company) has no idea who the driver is. The PPC has no idea who the driver is. The driver is unknown... unless the Hirer babs it, inadvertently or otherwise.

The known keeper receives a Notice to Keeper. The known keeper transfers liability for the PCN from themselves to the known Hirer. The known Hirer then receive a Notice to Hirer (NtH) in their own name. The PPC fails to follow all the strict requirements of paragraph 14(2)(b) of PoFA and so cannot hold the known keeper liable for the sins of the unknown driver.

Did you reveal the unknown drivers identity and so make the driver known? The driver is always liable.

In future, never, ever, ever, reveal the identity of the driver if you don't want to be scammed by these predators.

By paying the £60, you admitted liability and can kiss that money goodbye. If you had not identified the driver, you would not have to pay a penny to PE. Once the NtH was received, a simple "go get stuffed" protocol appeal would put an end to the matter:

This is an appeal by the Hirer - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtH does not fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 14(2)(b). As there is no Hirer liability, therefore, liability cannot flow from the driver to the Hirer and so, is an automatic win at POPLA. Please cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code at which point you will auto withdraw.

So, in this case, you have complicated matters. However, all is not lost. For now, you must ignore all final demands and any debt collector letters. You have to wait and see if PE will pursue this all the way to court. They don't always, especially if they farm it out to a third party, bottom-dwelling firm of roboclaim solicitors such as DCB Legal. If they do, you can guarantee that if you follow the advice and defend any claim robustly using a template defence, they will eventually discontinue.
Title: ParkingEye issued 2 PCNs, £60 paid, POPLA appeal rejected on another
Post by: 8vaibhav on July 16, 2024, 07:13:06 pm
I had two different ParkingEye PCNs for parking at the same location Morrisons (tried getting the 2nd PCN cancelled with them but they say they can't do anything and I need to contact ParkingEye directly, of course that's impossible)

First incident happened on 16th March.

Parking Signage said "Overnight Parking Tariffs Apply" but then also says "Upto 9 hours". This was confusing as "overnight" parking would almost always exceed 9 hours.

I went to PayByPhone App (which I used regularly), so I can select hours and minutes and pay accordingly, instead of hours it showed me the option to select number of days with NO mention of any "9 hours" limit. It was asking £15.20 which seemed excessive by any measure for 3 hours I spent there. It was also allowing to select multiple "days" which didn't make sense given the 9 hour limit and I concluded this was some BUG.

So, I thought I would try the machine on the venue before leaving. The parking machine was "out of service" and asked to used another machine while there was NO other machine. I ultimately had to leave without paying.


I drive a Leased EV, which means PCNs send to me take much longer to reach me.
So, I ended up parking again on the same venue on 1st April, and the machine was still out of order. I left without paying again and the very next day PCN for the first one arrived by post.

I appealled this but seems no real person read it, and they auto-rejected so I appealed on POPLA.

While waiting for POPLA decision I got 2nd PCN, I appealled again but again of course auto-rejected. This time I dindn't appeal to POPLA and paid £60 instead (thought to reduce damage)

POPLA desicion finally arrived where they agreed that parking machine was indeed "out of service" but didn't see it reason enough to reject PCN. Also, they agreed with PayByPhone being misleading but that didn't mean anything to them either. Please see attached their decision.

Now I have recieved FINAL notice (attached) despite paying £60 for already and despite having acknowledgement from POPLA that parking machine was out of order. I am in no mood to pay another £100 to get to a total of £160 to this company for a few hours of parking at the premise.

***UNABLE TO UPLOAD ANY ATTACHMENTS, The upload folder is full. Please try a smaller file and/or contact an administrator.***
Final Notice is asking me to pay within 14 days or they would raise it Debt recovery or court proceedings etc.  Please advise next steps.