Tweet
Purchased a ticket and displayed it face up on the dashboard.
Ten minutes later my wife returned to the car to retrieve her umbrella.
Opening the rear door of car in the wind and rain must have caused the ticket to overturn.
Returning to the car within the period covered by the ticket I was astonished to see a PCN attached to the windscreen.
The PCN had been issued because the ticket was not face-up.
Part of the reason the ticket became overturned was because the ticket was thin and flimsy. This allowed the details of the ticket to be read from the reverse.
I wrote an email to the company administering the parking and they emailed me back saying they would reply before 22nd July. They didn't reply and I thought common sense had prevailed.
Not so. On 25th July I received a letter dated 22nd July stating that they accepted it was a valid ticket but since it was not face-up, as directed by their signage, the charge was due.
Despite the letter arriving after the specified date I appealed to POPLA but to my surprise they upheld the verdict of Armtrac Services.
I refused to pay the £100 charge.
Armtrac Services passed the collection to TNC who have made a number of requests for £112.50 which I have rejected. Stating that my latest rejection was my final rejection, TNC stated that the charge was now £140 and they would put the collection in the hands of their doorstep collection team.
I intend to write to TNC stating
Receiving continual threats by letter, threats of visits, and actual visits quite clearly constitutes harassment. Whilst I am sympathetic to your position of desiring to ensure that your client receives payment, your company's own agenda gives you no right either legally or morally to harass me.
Your visiting officers will not call at my address. This letter denotes prior written and legal warning that any such visit will constitute trespass and harassment. Normally there is an assumed right of entry to the front door of a property. However this is denied to your employees and agents and any such person as you may instruct in this or any other matter. Any such act will evidently constitute harassment since prior warning has been given.
Your company will not send me any threatening letters or any other correspondence; you will not visit my property. You may, of course, reply to this letter.
You have now been informed that any such visit or usual threatening letter, or threats of visits constitute harassment. You will immediately cease. You may, of course, reply to this letter. You will kindly acknowledge in your reply that you have noted and understood the contents of this letter.
Since I paid the correct fee to park and Armtrac Services lost no revenue by the ticket becoming overturned I feel that any additional charge is totally unfair and unacceptable.
According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner imposes a parking fee for the area in question, there is only the limited loss to whoever it is due. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''
After I have sent TNC the harassment letter I intend to tough this out. Can you confirm this is the right course of action.
Ten minutes later my wife returned to the car to retrieve her umbrella.
Opening the rear door of car in the wind and rain must have caused the ticket to overturn.
Returning to the car within the period covered by the ticket I was astonished to see a PCN attached to the windscreen.
The PCN had been issued because the ticket was not face-up.
Part of the reason the ticket became overturned was because the ticket was thin and flimsy. This allowed the details of the ticket to be read from the reverse.
I wrote an email to the company administering the parking and they emailed me back saying they would reply before 22nd July. They didn't reply and I thought common sense had prevailed.
Not so. On 25th July I received a letter dated 22nd July stating that they accepted it was a valid ticket but since it was not face-up, as directed by their signage, the charge was due.
Despite the letter arriving after the specified date I appealed to POPLA but to my surprise they upheld the verdict of Armtrac Services.
I refused to pay the £100 charge.
Armtrac Services passed the collection to TNC who have made a number of requests for £112.50 which I have rejected. Stating that my latest rejection was my final rejection, TNC stated that the charge was now £140 and they would put the collection in the hands of their doorstep collection team.
I intend to write to TNC stating
Receiving continual threats by letter, threats of visits, and actual visits quite clearly constitutes harassment. Whilst I am sympathetic to your position of desiring to ensure that your client receives payment, your company's own agenda gives you no right either legally or morally to harass me.
Your visiting officers will not call at my address. This letter denotes prior written and legal warning that any such visit will constitute trespass and harassment. Normally there is an assumed right of entry to the front door of a property. However this is denied to your employees and agents and any such person as you may instruct in this or any other matter. Any such act will evidently constitute harassment since prior warning has been given.
Your company will not send me any threatening letters or any other correspondence; you will not visit my property. You may, of course, reply to this letter.
You have now been informed that any such visit or usual threatening letter, or threats of visits constitute harassment. You will immediately cease. You may, of course, reply to this letter. You will kindly acknowledge in your reply that you have noted and understood the contents of this letter.
Since I paid the correct fee to park and Armtrac Services lost no revenue by the ticket becoming overturned I feel that any additional charge is totally unfair and unacceptable.
According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner imposes a parking fee for the area in question, there is only the limited loss to whoever it is due. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''
After I have sent TNC the harassment letter I intend to tough this out. Can you confirm this is the right course of action.
Comment