Have seen posts regarding similar letters regarding dragging up old cases. If these were pre Oct 2012 then they can only pursue the driver, so although the law changed they would still be pre POFA. It seems Excel/VCS have simply moved threatogram generation to Rossendales from Poxburghe. Although the Excel/VCS are owned by the same people, they are two separate companies, and should be carrying out business as two separate companies! However when have these companies worried about legality's?

How do Blockbuster wish them to carry on? Blockbusters are in administration all business would be done by the administrators. I wonder if the administrators are aware that JAS are using these business premises to generate revenue. Surely any revenue should go to the creditors! http://www.moorfieldscr.com/

Re arrange to "Tongue in cheek" Nots not really SRS its Lord Lucan!

Cheek tongue in!

Rent a brief outfit, one recently turned up to represent "Parkingeye" but thought he was representing "Private eye" needless to say he lost! They are probably using LPC law as a lever because if questioned they could always say well if we did issue a claim we would have used them, seeing they simply provide a mouth at court rather then deal with the whole matter! http://www.lpc-law.co.uk/

He may have just liked you!!!!!!!!!

What reason for issue did they put on the ticket?

Hmm Excel is it a P&D machine where you need to input your reg No? However wait for the NTK then appeal.

The problem with this approach it gives the PPC's a reason to approach the landowners, offering their services. We are against the stupid unjustified amounts these companies try and charge for basically not doing anything for the money they receive. As a whole most people who receive these charges have a legitimate reason to be parked. I can't see how a camera catching people for overstaying in a car park is managing said car park. It gives you a set time to enter and leave. However while your in there you could actually park sideways over 3 bays and not receive a charge. On foot patrols give a little more control but if these companies are paying someone to be there, then they must encourage them to have little or no tolerance, to make it pay. I have never received a charge as a driver, I did have a fleet of vehicles so had a few as a keeper, but the reason I have never had a charge is because its not really to difficult not to get one. If I go somewhere and the time limit is to low, then I simply go elsewhere. Having said that here in Liverpool we are not known for our tolerance, if we think something aint right, so we don't have many PPC's around. I don't think abusing a landowners rights over their land is the right way to fight these companies.

Having looked at this car park who is it for the use of? It is in a crescent of shops and a few shops over the road, but whose car park is it.

You dont need to keep us informed we know what you will receive, since this thread started POFA has come into force, ignoring them is not the best thing to do now. The odds of you being taken to court are probably on your side. However if you are the one who is unlucky and is taken to court, a court would have expected you to try everything you can to avoid it needing to be settled by a court. An appeal to POPLA would almost certainly put this too bed, if you wish to take old advice and ignore everything then good luck! When you say the have no jurisdiction your correct, but what they have got is the right to recover costs, which we are not party to whatever they are claiming, and some courts believe those costs to be the amount claimed by the claimant. As you say its your choice hope your right!

DRP are Zenith! For some reason they believe swapping them between companies has some effect.

Is this one Gladstones have taken over from Roxburghe, GBP solicitors? Gladstones are running the new ATA and the new IPC and it seems taking over as solicitors for Roxburghe. http://www.theipc.info/#!services/ceb2

The last case discontinued by SIP the OP over on MSE has posted the reply he got back from the BPA. "I received an email from BPA today : "I have received a response from SIP Parking with reference to your complaint. The Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled. They have now amended their process so that they do not pursue these PCNs under POFA unless they are within the 56-day requirement." - so was that the trigger ?? " It may be worth firing an email off to SIP stating that you believe they have made a commitment to the BPA AOS compliance team that they will not pursue under POFA if they are not within POFA's time scale. To avoid themselves and you any further expense and any counterclaim do they wish to discontinue this claim.

DRP can do nothing Smart could but they have never yet, they make enough out of the poor sods who pay they don't need to chase people through the court system.

ignoring them now can be risky it would be best to appeal which they will no doubt refuse, then win at a POPLA appeal.

Hopefully yours will be along shortly! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?411165-SIP-Parking-Issued-Court-Papers-Help/page2

Well done you can relax now and forget about it. It seems they have realised you were not going to be scared by their claim. Unfortunately I bet there are a few who have paid up to avoid court action.

A standard or templated letter is of little use really as you need to address your own circumstances. Just write and explain the situation, NCP unlike others do sometimes except mitigating circumstances. If they do reject then take it to POPLA when you can give a full monty appeal!

Not really they are perfectly entitled to send a "demand" or request for payment for something you owe them. As long as they follow the correct format for requesting payment. The whole problem is the amounts they claim, and the way they go about trying to collect it. I dont think many people would complain if NCP sent a NTK for any due amount ie: the cost of parking which was not paid, £2.50 DVLA fee and say £5 admin, its the £60/70/100 for whatever they have dreamed up they want paying for. I remember the good old days NCP car park you drove in took a ticket, on the way out handed ticket to person in kiosk and they charged you whatever was due. Now stay 10 mins over the paid time and they deem it reasonable to charge you £60/70

If you fancy a read! https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197528/Release_of_information_from_DVLA.pdf

"Reasonable cause" is the key anybody with reasonable cause can require the DVLA to furnish them with a keepers details. Where it falls over is in a PPC's case being a member of an accredited ATA is enough reasonable cause. Its bad enough when they do a paper request because they simply say the cause is the issue of a charge. If they have access to the electronic link, they just receive the details! The only record the DVLA have of the request is that it was made, not for the reason it was made! When keeper liability first came in the DVLA suspended 5 companies from receiving details for 3 months for issuing false claims on their signs and or paperwork. Since that time they seem to be able to get away with anything. Complain to the DVLA they contact the BPA who then say they are not a regulator, yet have a sanctions system which is very secretive about it. It really does need looking at because as you say certain companies are really overstepping the mark when it comes to these charges.

The problem with DRP+ is no one there has the required brain capacity to differentiate between a real debt and these requests for payment. You can understand why in the debt collection world this company really are bottom feeders.

If DRP pass it to LPC who are LPC representing? It would be UKPC who need to pass it to LPC. If DRP pass it to LPC on behalf of UKPC then it cuts them out of the food chain. Not a good business plan is it? There again I believe £200/300 is LPC's fee for presenting and representing, to chase a £100 charge £25 court fee £50 solicitors fee, £175 seems a good plan to me!!!!!! Edit: Just noticed its pre POFA, so they know who the driver is then?

You wont need to win, and if I was a betting man I would wager that they just drop this. If they were stupid enough to go near a court with this I suspect their representative would be going home with one more backside then they arrived at court with. Remember who you are dealing with these are ex clampers, who in their time have clamped doctors, nurses, delivery vans, and works vans. Who all had a right to be where they where but had to pay to be released. They have simply moved their bullying tactics on to issuing charges. The owner of this company was in the press saying he was going to sue the government for taking away his livelihood, when they banned clamping. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-14586933 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347597/Clamping-bosss-4m-payout-bid-Government-claiming-new-anti-cowboy-rules-ruin-business.html