TONY HETHERINGTON: Parking scams are still a scourge for motorists – what about Rishi’s promise?

Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday’s chief investigator. He battles the reader’s corner, reveals the truth that lies behind closed doors, and wins victories for those left out of pocket. Below you can read how to contact him.

CB writes: I am in the same position as the reader whose letter about parking fines you recently published.

I have paid for the parking and I have proven that I have paid, but Euro Car Parks Limited is still trying to charge me for a fine.

I refuse and have said I will see them in court. I will not pay the £170 they demand.

Tony Hetherington replies: you used the Upper Parliament Street car park in Nottingham. The car park machine didn’t issue a receipt, but your credit card statement says you paid £15.50, which is the correct price for a 24 hour stay, according to signs posted there by the owner Euro Car Parks.

You explained all this as soon as you received a parking charge notice demanding £100 which would be reduced to £60 if you paid quickly.

But Euro Car Parks rejected your appeal with what appears to be an automated letter stating that you have breached the terms and conditions because ‘a valid payment permit was not purchased’.

In short, if you are correct in what you say then Euro Car Parks required you to pay because the in-house machine did not give you a receipt. However, when you insisted on explaining how your card statement showed you had paid £15.50 to Euro Car Parks on the same day, you were told that you now had to pay £100 or face collection agencies.

You have demanded that Euro Car Parks take you to court so that you can defend yourself.

It hasn’t done this, but now expect to pay £170 including charges.

I have repeatedly asked Euro Car Parks for comment and to explain how the £15.50 payment can appear on your card statement, while at the same time accusing you of not paying.

The company has not commented or explained.

It acts as if it’s enough to make demands over and over in the belief that drivers will pay rather than take legal action.

And this is the crux of the whole problem. Without referring to Euro Car Parks itself, you could agree with this statement about parking companies: ‘There are many dishonest operators who take advantage of people. The signage is pretty bad, there are inconsistent practices, they send very harassing letters and they clearly think there’s a game going on.”

Or how about this: “Those threatening letters, they look very legalistic, they are intimidating, they have to stop!”

And best of all, “While many of these parking companies operate responsibly, many do not, and some, frankly, have done little more than thinly disguised extortion rackets.”

All these comments are from one man, a deputy minister in government in 2018: Rishi Sunak, now the resident of 10 Downing Street.

He promised legal changes, including a fair code of conduct, that would put violators out of business. Four years later, in 2022, the code of practice was launched. And four months later it was ‘temporarily’ withdrawn. Maybe parking bosses aren’t the only dishonest operators.

I suspect Euro Car Parks may decide you’re causing more trouble than you’re worth, but let me know if they take you to court. I would like to let you know the result.

New shock after a shunt…

Ms. PA writes: I was very interested in your excellent article about the driver who had an accident and was insured with Privilege, but received a County Court ruling after lawyers sued for the other driver.

It has made me quite uncomfortable as I just started the same nightmare albeit with my insurer Churchill.

Tony Hetherington replies: You had a minor accident when you ran into the back of another car, and since you had a fully comprehensive policy, Churchill paid your own repair bill without delay.

You left it to Churchill to settle the other driver’s claim, so it was a shock when you received a letter from the District Court saying you were being sued for over £6,000 in repair bills plus a further £1,000 in interest, cover court costs and legal fees. cost.

You called Churchill and were told to ignore this because the insurers would pay. You were then told that a defense had been filed with the court on your behalf.

And finally you were contacted by lawyers who introduced themselves as your lawyers, appointed by Churchill. But why would you need lawyers if Churchill would honor the claim?

Churchill and Privilege are both part of the Direct Line group, so I asked the officials there if this indicated a glitch in their system.

They told me, ‘We have spoken to Ms A and explained that the claim has been fully settled. No County Court rulings have been made.”

However, this was only half the story. Staff errors meant that the other driver’s claim was only partially paid, which is why you were sued. To make up for this, Churchill has now sent you £500.

Account closed – and a refund

RH writes: Scottish Power have closed my electricity bill and I am getting no response from them.

For over two months I have been telling them they have the wrong address.

I am severely disabled and am concerned about my electricity being cut off. They even gave me a £235 refund which is not mine.

Tony Hetherington replies: You live in a small community and your house is number 1 on your street. Nearby, on a different road but with the same zip code, there is also a house that is number 1. And here the confusion began.

The other number 1 had been empty for a long time. When a new resident moved in, he gave Scottish Power his house number and postcode.

Scottish Power told me: ‘This made it appear as if a new occupier was moving into Mr H’s address, which led to his account being closed.’ Your account has now been restored and credited with £75 sorry.

If you believe you have been the victim of financial misconduct, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY or email tony.hetherington@mailonsunday.co.uk. Due to the large number of questions, no personal answers can be given. Only send copies of original documents, which unfortunately cannot be returned.