Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: daisy on December 18, 2024, 06:01:38 pm
-
Thank you for your clarification.
I appreciate the advice and will ignore any further communication from ZZPS or GCTT. It’s reassuring to know that they have no legal power to pursue anything further. Thanks again for your help!
-
What "penalty"? You ave not received an "penalty' or "fine". An unregulated private parking company is not an authority. They sent you a speculative invoice.
What you have shown us is simply rubbish from a debt collector. ZZPS and their sister company GCTT are powerless to do anything apart from try to scare you into paying the alleged debt. They re not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver. Ignore them and any other debt collector letters you get. Use them as toilet paper.
Never, ever, ever communicate with a powerless debt collector. Do not respond to that email and you can tell your mail program that anything from zaps is to be considered as junk.
-
Hi guys,
I received this email today, and after searching on Google, I found out that this is a company that deals with parking charge notices. I think it might be related to the penalty mentioned above. However, I find it strange to receive this type of email. It looks like a scam. Is this normal? A personal business matter? What on earth is going on?! Has anyone ever had to deal with them? Is this even legal?
Thanks.
(https://i.imgur.com/heTn8w0.jpeg)
-
I feel much more confident about the process now. It is good to know that engaging with the IAS won’t impact any potential outcome later. Your point about CPR 16.4 and their reluctance to take this to court is helpful to understand.
I will wait to see what is going to come next.
Thanks again for your advice and for breaking it all down so clearly. It’s much appreciated!
-
Whether you do or you don’t engage with the kangaroo court that is the IAS has absolutely no bearing on anything going forwards. There are no “standard procedures”. You are dealing with an unregulated private parking company.
I can guarantee that if/when they do issue a claim, they will be in breach of CPR 16.4 the moment they issue it. That alone is grounds for strike out, never mind the reasons for the claim in the first place.
Thy really do not want a judge to consider their claim because thy are likely to get a proverbial spanking. They rely on your gullibility and ignorance of the process and the law to actually pay up before the claim goes to a hearing.
Over 41,000 PCNs are issued every single day by these unregulated private parking companies. The majority are paid at the “mugs discount” rate. For those that are challenged through the appeals process, depending on whether through POPLA or the IAS, many recipients think that that is the end of the process and they must pay up. It isn’t and they don’t have to.
Of those that go as far as a claim, the majority (who don’t get the advice given here or on MSE) end up as either default CCJs because the defendant has no idea of the process or deadlines or else the defendant poops their pants and pays up out of fear of litigation.
The rest, when defended properly, end up being discontinued before any hearing. Those that do end up at a hearing, which is very few, are usually successful. Even if it weren’t, there is no danger of a CCJ because as long as the CCJ is fully paid within 28 days of judgment, it is completely expunged from your credit record. Also, the actual CCJ is usually less than the claim amount anyway.
So, the odds are in your favour if you honestly believe that you have been issued the PCN unfairly or unlawfully.
-
Will not appeal to the IAS affect my case in court? I am concerned it might be seen as not following standard procedures. If that’s not an issue, I am fine with waiting.
-
Why are you surprised at their response. I already told you earlier that they are going to reject any appeal.
My advice is to wait this out and see if they decide to issue a claim. The IAS appeal is a fruitless exercise but you are free to have a go is you really want to.
You can safely ignore all debt collector letters they will send you. This will be won if/when they send a claim. They really don't want to get this in front of a judge and are simply hoping that you are gullible enough to pay up when they threaten or actually start litigation.
-
These guys are quick. This is their reply:
(https://i.imgur.com/LxC9C8G.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Jk7cWbb.jpeg)
"Failure to Park Within a Marked Bay"? "Parking on private land"? - Is the road even private land? It’s not even a private road. What exactly are they talking about?
"Parking contract"? - Driving in the dark and entering a road with a sign only on the left-hand side—completely unrelated to their jurisdiction—does not mean I’ve agreed to enter into any sort of contract.
"The grace period is not a free parking period and will not apply if the driver is making use of the land"? - I wasn’t given a chance to choose anything, and what exactly did I use?
"In addition, choosing to not read the T&Cs"? How is someone expected to read small print in the dark while driving?
"The driver automatically entered into a contractual agreement"? - No, I did not. That’s precisely why I left after three minutes. I didn’t even park—I pulled over for three minutes.
What is wrong with these people?
-
This is a well trodden path and we are very familiar with the process and the various operators modus operandi.
-
Welcome. This is how it is going to unfold and you must accept that there is unlikely to be any other option unless you decide to pay the scammers and become part of the problem.
You will appeal to NPM and it will be rejected. You won't bother with the kangaroo court that is the IAS secondary appeal service.
You then ignore the wave of useless debt collector letters that will come your way until eventually, you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and then an N1SDT Claim Form from the county court.
With our advice and a valid defence, you go through the motions of acknowledging service of the claim and defending it. Eventually, the claim is discontinued once they realise you are not some low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree that is going to capitulate at the first sign of litigation.
So, for now, you appeal to NPM with the following:
Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference Number]
Dear NPM,
I am writing to challenge the Parking Charge Notice referenced above. The allegation is that the driver "failed to park within a marked bay," based on an observation period of just 3 minutes.
This notice is completely baseless and in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (SCoP), Annex B1. For locations where parking is restricted to permit holders, a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes must be allowed for drivers to read and accept the terms and conditions. Issuing a PCN after only 3 minutes is a blatant violation of this requirement, rendering the PCN invalid.
It is obvious that no breach of terms could possibly have occurred within the mandated consideration period. Your actions demonstrate either ignorance of the SCoP or an intentional disregard for its rules in an attempt to extort money from drivers.
This PCN must be cancelled immediately. I will not waste my time engaging with the IAS, an organisation that exists solely to shield operators like you from accountability. Should you be so vexatious as to pursue this matter further, I will relish the opportunity to defend against your spurious claim in court, where your disregard for the Private Parking Code of Practice and your predatory practices will be laid bare.
Yours,
[Your Full Name]
Thank you for outlining the process clearly. I completely agree with your approach and that this is the best action to address the situation effectively.
I am fully prepared to follow the steps you have recommended and will ensure that everything is handled as advised.
Thank you again for your support.
-
Welcome. This is how it is going to unfold and you must accept that there is unlikely to be any other option unless you decide to pay the scammers and become part of the problem.
You will appeal to NPM and it will be rejected. You won't bother with the kangaroo court that is the IAS secondary appeal service.
You then ignore the wave of useless debt collector letters that will come your way until eventually, you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and then an N1SDT Claim Form from the county court.
With our advice and a valid defence, you go through the motions of acknowledging service of the claim and defending it. Eventually, the claim is discontinued once they realise you are not some low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree that is going to capitulate at the first sign of litigation.
So, for now, you appeal to NPM with the following:
Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference Number]
Dear NPM,
I am writing to challenge the Parking Charge Notice referenced above. The allegation is that the driver "failed to park within a marked bay," based on an observation period of just 3 minutes.
This notice is completely baseless and in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (SCoP), Annex B1. For locations where parking is restricted to permit holders, a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes must be allowed for drivers to read and accept the terms and conditions. Issuing a PCN after only 3 minutes is a blatant violation of this requirement, rendering the PCN invalid.
It is obvious that no breach of terms could possibly have occurred within the mandated consideration period. Your actions demonstrate either ignorance of the SCoP or an intentional disregard for its rules in an attempt to extort money from drivers.
This PCN must be cancelled immediately. I will not waste my time engaging with the IAS, an organisation that exists solely to shield operators like you from accountability. Should you be so vexatious as to pursue this matter further, I will relish the opportunity to defend against your spurious claim in court, where your disregard for the Private Parking Code of Practice and your predatory practices will be laid bare.
Yours,
[Your Full Name]
-
Hello everyone,
I received a Parking Charge from NPM. I am finding it confusing because, first of all, I did not park there. The SAT NAV took me to a dead end, and I had to stop to sort it out. As you can see from the photo, I was there only for 3 minutes. Secondly, I stopped on the road. There are no yellow lines or anything. Thirdly, I went back there today. I am finding the signage unclear, as there is one company on the left-hand side of the road and different signs on the other. I took some more pictures. Hopefully, they are clear, and you can help me with some advice.
Thanks in advance.
(https://i.imgur.com/tplzUYr.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BNNMGZg.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/fBvNmWx.jpeg)
The red dot shows where I had stopped.
(https://i.imgur.com/MpRDT3q.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8ounJMm.jpeg)
I did not enter this private area on the side.
(https://i.imgur.com/vCpZkGL.jpeg)
I did see this one today. It is on the wall I stopped by that evening. However, I did not see it at the time I had to stop.
(https://i.imgur.com/kwGTsmW.jpeg)
This car was there today, and this is how I pulled over the other evening.
(https://i.imgur.com/4dAbDz8.jpeg)
This is the same car from the back.