Debt Recovery Plus Ltd re PCN
Discussion
I am in receipt of a letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, in connection with a ParkingEye "offence" perpetrated by my wife when she left her car in the wrong car park whilst taking our poorly son to a hospital at some time back in 2012.
For better or for worse, I have ignored everything sent to me on this by ParkingEye so far. I haven't had anything from from them for ages, so I thought they'd lost interest and moved on. The new letter says that they wrote saying they'd place the account on hold for a stipulated period of time, which has presumably now passed. They are promising that they will continue to pursue the outstanding amount.
Can I continue to ignore this?
Am I correct in thinking that there are no actions they can take which will disadvantage me other than via a court process? Clearly I'll pay rather than get a CCJ, but frankly I am minded to cause them to waste their time and resources to the greatest extent possible. If everybody did this, perhaps the economics of these "businesses" would be undermined...? Am I safe to assume that any such court process will offer me such a payment "opportunity"?
[As has been said many times before, these "businesses" are a menace. This was a genuine mistake, the existence of which my wife was completely unaware of. No-one suffered any loss etc. As I understand it, liability here is a contract law question: did my wife enter into a contract or not? Has this point yet been properly tested in a court? Anyway....]
For better or for worse, I have ignored everything sent to me on this by ParkingEye so far. I haven't had anything from from them for ages, so I thought they'd lost interest and moved on. The new letter says that they wrote saying they'd place the account on hold for a stipulated period of time, which has presumably now passed. They are promising that they will continue to pursue the outstanding amount.
Can I continue to ignore this?
Am I correct in thinking that there are no actions they can take which will disadvantage me other than via a court process? Clearly I'll pay rather than get a CCJ, but frankly I am minded to cause them to waste their time and resources to the greatest extent possible. If everybody did this, perhaps the economics of these "businesses" would be undermined...? Am I safe to assume that any such court process will offer me such a payment "opportunity"?
[As has been said many times before, these "businesses" are a menace. This was a genuine mistake, the existence of which my wife was completely unaware of. No-one suffered any loss etc. As I understand it, liability here is a contract law question: did my wife enter into a contract or not? Has this point yet been properly tested in a court? Anyway....]
iantr said:
As I understand it, liability here is a contract law question: did my wife enter into a contract or not? Has this point yet been properly tested in a court?
A little Google-work reveals the following: http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/parkingeye-vs-beav...Looks like ParkingEye won, so their charges are enforceable. I assume the existence of this case (heard late in 2015) held them off, but that they are now going to chase down all of the "opportunities" that they have. Ho hum.
iantr said:
A little Google-work reveals the following: http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/parkingeye-vs-beav...
Looks like ParkingEye won, so their charges are enforceable. I assume the existence of this case (heard late in 2015) held them off, but that they are now going to chase down all of the "opportunities" that they have. Ho hum.
That confirms that a penalty can be imposed for breach of contract. It doesn't change the fact that for a 2012 infringement they can only seek redress from the driver.Looks like ParkingEye won, so their charges are enforceable. I assume the existence of this case (heard late in 2015) held them off, but that they are now going to chase down all of the "opportunities" that they have. Ho hum.
Echoing what the previous poster said about the charge only being enforceable against the driver
Unfortunately a lot of people start their defence by saying 'I was only taking my sick mother to the hospital / I was only there for a minute / whatever' which automatically admits who the driver was.
If you haven't entered into any correspondence with PE that states who the driver was I think its sufficient to say that as the registered keeper you have no obligation to disclose who was driving at the time and no disclosure will be forthcoming
Unfortunately a lot of people start their defence by saying 'I was only taking my sick mother to the hospital / I was only there for a minute / whatever' which automatically admits who the driver was.
If you haven't entered into any correspondence with PE that states who the driver was I think its sufficient to say that as the registered keeper you have no obligation to disclose who was driving at the time and no disclosure will be forthcoming
PurpleMoonlight said:
iantr said:
A little Google-work reveals the following: http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/parkingeye-vs-beav...
Looks like ParkingEye won, so their charges are enforceable. I assume the existence of this case (heard late in 2015) held them off, but that they are now going to chase down all of the "opportunities" that they have. Ho hum.
That confirms that a penalty can be imposed for breach of contract. It doesn't change the fact that for a 2012 infringement they can only seek redress from the driver.Looks like ParkingEye won, so their charges are enforceable. I assume the existence of this case (heard late in 2015) held them off, but that they are now going to chase down all of the "opportunities" that they have. Ho hum.
Red Devil said:
Nonsense. Look up the relevant date for the commencement of Section 56(4) and Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012. The OP has stated that the "offence" was 'some time in 2012' The actual date is crucial as to whether RK liability applies. Not that that will stop PE trying it on even if it was before the relevant date. If PE do issue a claim against him the OP will have to submit a defence or risk a default judgement.
Yes, you are correct.Post 1st October 2012 infringements can be claimed from the registered keeper.
Hard to believe it's been in place for over three years now ....
Assuming it's before the date:
Dear DRPD Ltd
Thank you for your letter.
The alleged incident was 4 years ago.
I do not know who may have been the driver of the car on that date.
Please provide appropriate evidence.
I would suggest only a clear photograph of the driver's face may be of assistance.
Love & kisses,
iantr
IANAL & I expect one of our better qualified members may be along shortly
Dear DRPD Ltd
Thank you for your letter.
The alleged incident was 4 years ago.
I do not know who may have been the driver of the car on that date.
Please provide appropriate evidence.
I would suggest only a clear photograph of the driver's face may be of assistance.
Love & kisses,
iantr
IANAL & I expect one of our better qualified members may be along shortly
Edited by paintman on Friday 19th February 12:59
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff