Parking Charge Notice - It's Getting Threatening....

[wobert]

My wife, as registered keeper of her car, recently received a Parking Charge Notice from CP+ who manage parking infringements on behalf of several of the motorway service areas.

Her car out-stayed it's welcome at one of their sites by 56 mins. The "bill" £80.

We responded stating that she was not the driver at the time, and also helpfully included comments that she was under no legal obligation to disclose who was and that they ought to take this matter up with the driver.

We then received another letter threatening CCJs, Credit Black marks etc unless she identified the driver - we replied again, re-stating she was not driving.....etc.

We also added to this letter, that other than confirmation that they would drop the matter, we would consider any further communication as harrassment and would contact the police.

Two weeks have now passed and the deadline for the intial offer has expired.

Yesterday she received another letter, stating that the "bill" was now £120 and threatening legal action and further costs, CCJs etc.

Could any legal eagles suggest a route forward from here???.....I suspect a letter from a solicitor would probably show we mean business, and probably a complaint to our local police will also enforce the "harrassment" side too.

Thanks in advance.....

Just for clarity, she was 200 miles away at the time the "infringement" ocurred

[mybrainhurts]

They're relying on contract law. If they can't name a driver, they have no-one to sue.

Forget it.

If you must get in touch, tell them to redirect their ire to the driver. You don't know who was driving, do you..?

Many threads on this, I do believe.


Edit..

Sorry, didn't read all your post before I replied. Doesn't make any difference, though. Ignore it. There is no obligation to name a driver.

Edited by mybrainhurts on Thursday 24th March 16:58

[14-7]

Prohibition of harassment.

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—.

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and.

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other..


(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other..

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—.

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,.

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any
enactment, or.

(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable..

[wobert]

mybrainhurts said:

They're relying on contract law. If they can't name a driver, they have no-one to sue.

Forget it.

If you must get in touch, tell them to redirect their ire to the driver. You don't know who was driving, do you..?

Many threads on this, I do believe.


Edit..

Sorry, didn't read all your post before I replied. Doesn't make any difference, though. Ignore it. There is no obligation to name a driver.

Edited by mybrainhurts on Thursday 24th March 16:58

Thanks.....

That kind of backs up my interpretation of how the law stands......if anyone legally qualified could confirm this is true I would be most grateful.

Who the driver is in this instance is not something for this thread - I can only confirm that my wife was NOT the driver at the time of the infringement.

I suspect one way forward is to contact the legal bods connected to our houshold insurance.....??

[wobert]

14-7 said:

Prohibition of harassment.

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—.

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and.

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other..


(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other..

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—.

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,.

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any
enactment, or.

(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable..

So does Subsection (1) b imply that their conduct is reasonable?

On two occasions we have confimed in writing that she was not the driver at the time, yet still they persist!

[GKP]

Stop replying to them.

[mybrainhurts]

wobert said:

I suspect one way forward is to contact the legal bods connected to our houshold insurance.....??

No, there are two ways forward...

(1) Ignore it, they can go no further

or

(2) Tell them to ps off

If you're still worried, search here for the other threads or Google it.

[GreigM]

GKP said:

Stop replying to them.

This. If you reply they think they've got a fish on the hook.

[croyde]

I've had this from a firm that deals with the local supermarket carpark. Some one directed me to a site that explained exactly what would happen, what letters would be received and how they would be worded.

It did all happen like clockwork and I ignored them all as instructed. Nothing happened.

Here is the forum that helped me:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthr...

[Deva Link]

GreigM said:

This. If you reply they think they've got a fish on the hook.

Everything you read about these things says never reply in the first place.

[bennyboydurham]

Just ignore them, they'll give up eventually. Your biggest mistake was replying to them in the first place, sadly.

[V8 Vum]

Makes you wonder how they got your name and address in the first place?

The only place I know is the DVLA, in which case would I be right that they are breaking the law themselves - data protection act etc????

[Deva Link]

V8 Vum said:

The only place I know is the DVLA, in which case would I be right that they are breaking the law themselves - data protection act etc????

I suppose if they stop that, then the next thing is you'll need a ticket to get into the service area, and you'll have to pay on exit.

[Mr E]

V8 Vum said:

Makes you wonder how they got your name and address in the first place?

The only place I know is the DVLA, in which case would I be right that they are breaking the law themselves - data protection act etc????

DVLA will sell your address to pretty much anyone who asks.

[14-7]

Mr E said:

V8 Vum said:

Makes you wonder how they got your name and address in the first place?

The only place I know is the DVLA, in which case would I be right that they are breaking the law themselves - data protection act etc????

DVLA will sell your address to pretty much anyone who asks.

Now you know that strictly isn't true.

[GTIR]

14-7 said:

Mr E said:

V8 Vum said:

Makes you wonder how they got your name and address in the first place?

The only place I know is the DVLA, in which case would I be right that they are breaking the law themselves - data protection act etc????

DVLA will sell your address to pretty much anyone who asks.

Now you know that strictly isn't true.

I just rang up DVLA and asked for details of a reg number and they told me to go and take a jump.

Charming.

She did say if I had a talking plumber dog she may be able to do something.

[Chrisgr31]

Best thing to do is ignore the letters in the first place, or if you know one is coming and recognise it through the door return it unopened having written across it "No longer here"

4 years ago I received various letters from a car park operator and then a debt collection agency (who according to the googling I did were based in the same floor of the same building), I ignored them all and they have gone away.

[wobert]

Thanks for the responses....

Looks like it's [ignore mode /ON] CP Plus

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

If you don't pay the bill within the next 30 days, the case will be handed to the parking firms solicitors to oversee the debt collection proceedings. You can expect the 'bill' to rise to many thousands of pounds, and your car may be impounded.


In other words, anyone can write something that sounds scary, but has as much chance of going anywhere as me winning the lottery.

I have been there and done that - except I was expecting the 'bill'. I recognised the letter and (as someone said above) returned it unopened to the sender stating 'no longer known at this address'.
A further 3x letters came, but they all got sent back. This was two years ago - nothing further heard.

[andygo]

Just read the info on here, they have this subject nailed. Things might change a little though with new legislation coming in after pressure from parking companies. In the meantime, ignore everything from the issuers of the parking 'invoice'. To put it into perspective, if your wife was sent an invoice for a service she had not used, would she pay it? Nope thought not!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30