Hi All, I've been internet inactive for a week. I received another letter yesterday saying they are going to advise the client to apply for a ccj if I don't pay £340. It then states that this will add on an additional £265 to the bill

They can advise their client to do what the hell they like. If they try to go to court with these 'costs' they will be laughed out.

If you haven't done so, report this to trading standards

As I am a belligerent bu**er, I would be tempted to follow the complaints route and then sue them for misleading me and harassment.

Hi and welcome.

 

2 choices.

 

1 wind them up with letter tennis

 

2 Ignore them as there is nothing they can do to you. Highly doubtful they would ever try this in court

I have just submitted a complaint to HCEOA as they are a member, the Notice of Enforcement letters are all over the place, I've asked them to clarify what exactly are they able to enforce as no judgement has ever been passed. I'd welcome the opportunity to go to court and explain this situation, I'd certainly make sure that I take these fake enforcement notices with me!

And I've also complained to BPA too, their logo is on the letters from DCBL so I've queried whether they actually do endorse their actions

The important thing about the Supreme Court [2015] case is that they just reinforced common law (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1967) Court of Appeal),

in that the liberal judge Denning essentially said if the clause terms are clear, ie £85 for going over the 2 hours and this notice is available in several places (assuming it's a large car park), then the clause is valid.

However Denning in Thornton also said the clause must not be too onerous, so in my view it's a balance of interests:

Thornton. The other case the Supreme Court [2015] ruled in along with Parking Eye was Cavendish, which related to a business relationship of 'restrictive covenants' (ie land agreements obligations).

Restrictive covenants' penalty clauses are enforceable and are not unconscionable for businesses, and this is pretty much the view of the courts with contracts, ie the contract is carried out to the letter of the law, as the contractors intended it to at the point of contract.

So, is the clause fair, ie not unduly onerous and is the notice available in several places for all to see. As Denning in Thornton said, the larger the land the more that it required.

I hope this helps.

the threshold for harassment is very high, I have sued a parking co once and as it was a counterclaim the judge told me that it would be heard separately but the liklihood of success would be low so the matter was deferred for 11 months 30 days to see what the parking co were going to do. As they went quiet about 2 days after their claim was struck out I havent chanced my arm.

Use all other avenues that dont cost you money

the threshold for harassment is very high, I have sued a parking co once and as it was a counterclaim the judge told me that it would be heard separately but the liklihood of success would be low so the matter was deferred for 11 months 30 days to see what the parking co were going to do. As they went quiet about 2 days after their claim was struck out I havent chanced my arm.

Use all other avenues that dont cost you money

I've sent complaints to BPA, HCEOA and MoJ today outlining how they've misrepresented their authority at this stage and amending the Notice of Enforcement letters to make it appear that they have authority to enforce without a CCJ, not to mention their fees which they're not entitled to add. I like to think I'm quite savvy when it comes to these matters, but I pity the vulnerable people who will also have had these letters and paid up right away through fear of DCBL smashing their doors down to take their property. I will post updates if and when there are any. Terrible, underhand, immoral con artists.

Behind the scenes I have been taking the matter of these letters up with various bodies and I will be writing more about this in a couple of days.

Have you had any responses to date? I had a response from HCEOA who asked for copies of correspondence from DCBL which I've sent, they are now investigating. Fingers crossed, they'll be put in their place and stop abusing their authority or better still, if enough people complain, they'll have their authority suspended!!

Have you had any responses to date? I had a response from HCEOA who asked for copies of correspondence from DCBL which I've sent, they are now investigating. Fingers crossed, they'll be put in their place and stop abusing their authority or better still, if enough people complain, they'll have their authority suspended!!

The HCEOA are fully aware of these letters and indeed this thread. The Ministry of Justice have also been provided with copies of all letters (which includes further correspondence as well that I have received via email). I am just awaiting a response from DVLA which I will be chasing up in the morning.

Whilst HCEOA will not doubt take an interest in this it is the interim FCA license that this behaviour will most affect.

Whilst HCEOA will not doubt take an interest in this it is the interim FCA license that this behaviour will most affect.

I too hope that the FCA do get involved however, I'm not sure they will due to this being nothing to do with consumer credit. They may act, based on their treatment of errant parkers and the possibility of using the same behaviour with consumer credit customers.

Has anyone actually reported this to the FCA? I haven't but I am willing to.

Yes I was wondering abut this also. I complained about a bailiff to the OFT before the change, after i was advised that most bailiff firms have some part of the business which is concerned with consumer credit or ancillary services.

They said that they would consider complaints even if the matter being addressed was not a credit issue as the terms of the licence refer to the conduct of their members, of course it went nowhere, complaints to regulatory authorities seldom do, just the usual response that they could not intervene in individual complaints and would retain the complaint in case there was future problems in the area.

Perhaps things have changed since the change over.

It's not clear if they are using Direct Collections Ltd's debt collection licence or another....

http://www.directcollections.co.uk/

I note at the bottom of their website page it says the following:

Trading License No.: 512588. Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority

Direct Collections Ltd is registered with ICO No. Z1001339. Company Reg. 4307699.

Registered in England & Wales Address: Direct House, Winnington Avenue, Winnington, Northwich, Cheshire, CW8 4EE. Phone: 0800 091 4907

All calls to and from Direct Collections Ltd are recorded. Working In Conjunction With Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd and DFMS Ltd

http://www.directcollections.co.uk/

The fact that the logo is a fist full of cash probably says all you need to know

As DCBL are not chasing the 'debt' under the consumer credit laws, the FCA will have no involvement however, if they are also pretending to collect the charge using their licence, the FCA would be interested.

Parking charges are not consumer related debt.

I am still awaiting responses from DVLA and the British Parking Association.

I have had long discussions with both organisations and they have been provided with plenty of documentation.

Just wondering any update in this theard?

I had the 3rd letter fro DCBL today, interestingly the MoJ logo is now gone.

Just wondering any update in this theard?

 

I had the 3rd letter fro DCBL today, interestingly the MoJ logo is now gone.

The MOJ logo went a few weeks back. I will seek updates on Monday.

Just wondering any update in this theard?

 

I had the 3rd letter fro DCBL today, interestingly the MoJ logo is now gone.

Can you upload it in pdf format so we can all have a laugh?

Make sure you take out ALL personal info.

ooo some thing been done and i guess they had there legs slapped .....wonder if there any fines for using the MOJ logo i do hope so ...still nothing on my end .. still no word if its been dropped or still laying wait in the backround ???

This is the letter 3, I am sure it is just computer generated. I haven't contact them at all, would be interesting to see how it develop.

Hopes the attachment works

right I've sorted the PDF

and removed the ref number you left

the issue was the encoded pdf type

poss the program you used .

dx

Now we have the letter visible. Ignore it. They cannot claim £340 nor the £265 extra they are claiming. Any claim will be in the small claims and the costs are fixed. Sheila Tams knows this, NGP knows this an we all know this.

While it wouldn't be convenient for you or other NGP victims, I would like to see them try it on in court. They would have an audience if only to see this claim struck out.

In my opinion, NGP will not go anywhere near a court and will either start the process all over again or let it die the death it deserves.

Where is thier Consumer Credit Licence?

I was under the impression that this has to be on all communications that involve collection of money or debt. I cannot see thier CCL anywhere

Where is thier Consumer Credit Licence?

 

I was under the impression that this has to be on all communications that involve collection of money or debt. I cannot see thier CCL anywhere

This is not a consumer related debt therefore the FCA permission number wouldn't need to be shown. This is a spurious charge which in no way relates to debt or FCA registered permissions

In my opinion, NGP will not go anywhere near a court and will either start the process all over again

so do you mean they will send the letters to the ppl who have not paid and offer them the chance to appeal or pay or just the letters off dcbl asking for the 1st amount £180 then 2and letter asking for more so on ..