Private parking charge ‘Demand for payment’ ‘Final Demand’. Urgent deadline in 3 days

[Sb12345]

Hello. Please see pictures below. This is the latest of a number of letters received from excel parking. The parking charge was issued for failing to display a valid ticket. A payment was made but the wrong vehicle registration was entered. The vehicle of the registration that was incorrectly entered was written off. The keeper appealed the charge and stated that they had made payment. The parking company then responded with a notice to driver despite appealing as the keeper stating payment was made but for the wrong registration and that this is not a defence. Will this letter lead to a ccj do I need to make payment etc. I would prefer to try to defend this through a court process but I am unsure of how to do that. I feel that as a payment was made albeit for the wrong registration this should cover the matter. How would a court view this etc?

page 1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/nhcn4pv1ly..._0088.jpg?dl=0
page 2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/1bsa93i63c..._0089.jpg?dl=0

[ostell]

What's the Urgent Deadline?

I believe courts have ruled that as payment was made then the basic contract was satisfied, they made an offer to park you accepted and paid.

They cannot just get a CCJ against you, you will only get a CCJ recorded against you IF they take you to court and IF your lose and IF you don't pay within a month.

So you are saying that the identity of the driver has not been given? Yes or No?

Why not post up the original Notice to Keeper that you received from Excel, suitably redacted to not identify you but leave dates.

That Notice to Drive is interesting, perhaps that as well. Is this a lease/rental car?

If they are claiming from the keeper then they can only claim for the original amount on the PCN (+ nominal court and solicitor costs).

Have a look at POFA to see what should have been happening With a windscreen ticket it is mainly paragraph 8 otherwise paragraph 9.

[Sb12345]

The identity of the driver was not given explicitly. It has been inferred by the company due to wording used in the appeal. The payment for parking was made by the keeper and the appeal was made by the keeper but the driver could have been any of a number of people. The company have inferred that the keeper was the driver as part of the keepers appeal was to send evidence of previous payments made to show that payment was and always is made.

please see further documents with info redacted. The link will take you to a folder with all images

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hlboolneh...whT7Ke4va?dl=0