• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Parking charge, ticket & Notice to Keeper not received, now debt collection agency

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Parking charge, ticket & Notice to Keeper not received, now debt collection agency

    Hi all,

    around May this year, a car was parked at a hospital , and apparently received a parking charge for the privilege.The first the driver heard about it is when he received a letter from National Debt Collections. (please see email thread below). Given their response, the driver is inclined to write to them and just send them a pdf copy of the letter as proof of payment. Could anyone advise if/ how he can get this charge removed or reduced please?

    Thanks in advance,

    GarlickFiend.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Date 17.08.18
    Parking notice no. XXXXXXXX
    Vehicle Reg No. XX XXX

    Hi,

    X received a letter from you regarding an unpaid parking notice, with a current balance of £120.00.
    Obviously this is a concern, and also the first the driver has heard about it! £120 seems to be a little steep for a parking fine, it usually starts out around £25.00 or so, then up to £50. Also, there are no details of where he was parked to understand where and when the offence may have occurred, nor what to do if he disagree with the parking notice!

    The driver would appreciate if you could let him have some of these details so that he may get this resolved.

    Kind regards,

    GarlickFiend
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Date 17.08.18
    Good morning,

    Thank you for your email regarding PCN XXXXXXXX. First Parking are an approved member of the British Parking Association (BPA) which allows them to legally carry out parking control and enforcement. The PCNs are issued by employed members of staff at Nottingham University Hospital and First Parking then complete the administration.

    The PCN had been issued on 22/05/2018 for not being parked within bay markings and the Notice had been attached to the vehicle for the driver's attention. The PCN provided details on how to make a reduce payment of £25.00 within 14 days of the contravention or how to submit an appeal. After 14 days, the PCN rate stands at the original amount of £50.00 as stated on the signage and on the PCN.

    As the notice had not been acknowledged within 28 days, First Parking obtained the keeper details from the DVLA for vehicle P4HSX and sent a Notice to Keeper on 25/06/2018. The Notice provided further details on how to make payment of £50.00 or submit an appeal.

    As the additional Notice had not been responded to, the PCN has been passed to us to administer with no further option to appeal. Please find attached the photographic evidence of the PCN attached to the vehicle and the Notice to Keeper issued by First Parking.

    Kinds regards,
    Administration Team
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Date 17.08.18
    Hi,

    Thanks for sending that through. the driver agrees that that that is his car, and would have been parked at City Hospital around that time. So the driver does not disagree with the charge as such.

    However, what the driver does maintain is that he didn't have the little yellow envelope stuck on his screen when he got to his car (thanks for the photo), and didn't receive the notice (which you've also kindly sent through a photo of). Whilst the driver now believes that you created these documents, the driver still did not receive them. The driver does not believe a scan of a letter is acceptable proof of receipt of that letter.

    That being said, you've provided proof of the offence as asked, which now you've kindly provided, the driver doesn't disagree with, just the receipt of various notifications. So the driver's query still stands, you're asking the driver for £120, based upon photos that you took. The driver is stating that he has not received these documents, and thus £120 is a bit steep for the first he has heard about it, and he is contacting you based on the first letter he has received.

    Please advise,

    Kind regards,

    GarlickFiend
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date 20.08.18

    Good morning,

    Please be aware that we did not take the photographic evidence nor did we send you the original Notice to Keeper. The photos had been taken by an enforcement officer employed by the Hospital and First Parking LLP had processed the PCN based on the evidence provided. First Parking were also the company who had issued the original Notice to Keeper to you.

    First Parking LLP are audited by the BPA and the DVLA and their processes are approved. Letters are sent via the Royal Mail who are a regulated business with a universal service obligation that’s deemed good enough for the courts and is equally good enough for First Parking LLP and National Debt Collections. A 2nd class notification is deemed as served 2 days after its been issued. Please find attached the information they hold that the Notice to Keeper had been printed and sent via royal mail.

    First Parking LLP and Nottingham University Hospital have acted according and have provided the appropriate evidence in order for us to chase for the debt you are liable for.

    Kinds regards,
    Administration Team
    Last edited by GarlickFiend; 21st August 2018, 13:57:PM.
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Bump.

    Comment


    • #3
      So edit so that the driver cannot be idetnified. Use "the driver...."etc.

      At any time was the identity of the driver given to the parking company? Simple Yes or No. On reflection is looks like possibly yes.

      With an alleged windscreen ticket the notice to keeper must be received by the registered keeper between days 28 and 56 after the event. Looks like you have received nothing at all. Was there actually a notice on the windscreen? It's not unknown for a ticket to be on the windscreen for the phote then removed.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ostell View Post
        So edit so that the driver cannot be idetnified. Use "the driver...."etc.

        At any time was the identity of the driver given to the parking company? Simple Yes or No. On reflection is looks like possibly yes.

        With an alleged windscreen ticket the notice to keeper must be received by the registered keeper between days 28 and 56 after the event. Looks like you have received nothing at all. Was there actually a notice on the windscreen? It's not unknown for a ticket to be on the windscreen for the phote then removed.
        The driver told them it is his car and it was parked there. They've sent him several photos of the car in situ, one of which has the notice on the windscreen. They also sent the driver a pdf copy of the notice to keeper. The driver said thanks for that, but that he didn't have the yellow sticker on the car when he got to it, and he never received the notice to keeper - they say they used royal mail, so consider it delivered.
        Last edited by GarlickFiend; 21st August 2018, 13:58:PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          So they can prove that they posted the NTK? You're using "I" again !!! please edit.

          So let's see that NTK, redacted to remove personal details but leave dates.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi Ostell,

            Sorry, didn't get what you were saying about the edit before - hopefully it's better now (although the emails above are now not quite what was sent )

            Please see attached NTK, hopefully it's all redacted enough, you may have to zoom to read it properly.

            Thank you. Click image for larger version

Name:	NTKGarlickFiend.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	138.7 KB
ID:	1420224

            Comment


            • #7
              The keeper told them that..... they also sent the keeper..... All processing from here on in is by the keeper.


              They seem to have missed out 8 (2) (e), and a couple of other things, such as identifying the creditor.


              Sirs

              Ref PCN xxxxx VRM yyyyyy

              I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and am in receipt of the PCN you issued.

              I have no liability on this matter as you have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, failing to deliver the Notice to Keeper to me within the relevant period as required by 8 (4) of the Act.

              In addition, the Notice to Keeper that you purport to have delivered failed, amongst other things, to give the invitation to pay that is required, contrary to section 8 (2) (e) of the Act. You cannot therefore transfer liability from the driver at the time to me.

              There is no legal requirement to identify the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

              Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

              Yours etc.

              Comment


              • #8
                Would the keeper say in receipt of the issued PCN? They have only sent photos of the PCN attached to the vehicle and a pdf of the NTK. Sorry, just want to be clear!

                Also, is it ok to send via email?

                Thank you for your help on this Ostell.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yes, send by email but put on the flag for proof of delivery. To be honest, though, I think that sending first class mail with a free certificate of posting from a Post Office would provide the 3rd party proof that it was sent. It will help if it goes further.

                  I mentioned the purported NTK so it is up to them to show that it was actually sent. They will argue that it was but the answer to that would be show that proof, but don't mention it yet.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    OK, thanks. By post I think, that seems the best bet.

                    I have just noticed that there was a back/ page 2 to the NTK though... Will this alter the text you gave?

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	NTKGarlickFiend2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	136.5 KB
ID:	1420255

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GarlickFiend View Post
                      OK, thanks. By post I think, that seems the best bet.

                      I have just noticed that there was a back/ page 2 to the NTK though... Will this alter the text you gave?

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	NTKGarlickFiend2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	136.5 KB
ID:	1420255
                      Ostell - 2 things I want to ask if you could help;
                      1) Does the back of the letter consitute an invitation toi pay, and if so, does that change anything in the statement you suggested for the keeper to write?
                      2) The keeper receievd the following this morning:

                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I thought you would have sent that letter by now!

                        Yes send it and wait for a response.

                        That letter is from a debt collector. They cannot proceed to court.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I wasn’t sure if it was all still valid given the payment option thing. Thanks for clarifying, I’ll get it sent off today. Cheers

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The rules they state are of their own making. You are telling them that you are not liable for the charge so go away.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hi Ostell, I sent the letter you suggested on 28.08.18 but apparently I sent it to First Parking themselves, who replied to say that it was out of time and now with National Debt Collections.

                              As soon as I realised this mistake, I sent the letter again, on 06.09.18, only to National Debt Collections. Both letters sent first class with free certificate of posting.

                              Yesterday, I received a letter from DCBL Certificated Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement:

                              "DCBL Case Number: XXXXXXXX
                              Date 10th September 2018

                              Dear KEEPER

                              Your overdue amount of £100.00 due to First Parking in relation to an unpaid debt has now been passed to DCBL (Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited) to recover the debt on their behalf. a further £50.00 + VAT administration and recovery has now been accrued therefore the total amount now due is £160.00

                              To ensure no further action will take place please make immediate payment by one of the following methods.

                              Phoning our 24 hour payment lione 01302 897022 using reference number XXXXXX
                              Postal order/ Cheque, by posting to DCBL, Direct House, Greenwood Drive, Manor Park, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 1UG. Enclosing your case reference number XXXXXXXX,

                              Alternatively, if you wish to discuss your case please call 0203 4340423 quoting your case number.

                              Failure to address within 14 days of the date of this letter will result in your case being reviewed for legal recovery and such costs being added to the debt for recovery.



                              This case is not subject to High Court or Bailiff action."

                              They've managed to get the amounts involved incorrect as well. Please advise if you can?

                              Thanks,

                              GarlickFiend

                              Comment

                              View our Terms and Conditions

                              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                              Working...
                              X