Sussex Security Solutions Ltd - T/A Parking Enforcement Co - Eastgate Wharf in Lewes.

[ericsbrother]

has 35 days passed since your email? If so then there is no keeper liability so your best move is to now ignore anything but a lba. Should you get one of those then respond saying that they have failed to follow the protocols of the PoFA andthere is no keeper liability and to cease their correspondence with you or risk civil action for harassment.

Essentially they will probably get Gladstones to send you a threatening letter but as they are acting as a dca it is meaningless.

[n1ch3s]

Hi

I appealed on the day of PCN issue which was 21 June 2015 and their NTK was dated 23 July 2015 so not quite 35 days. I never received a response to my email appeal. This is first correspondence I have had since the PCN.

Thanks for your help.

[n1ch3s]

I have reverted to the old method of sticking something over the personal details - given up with ever being able to manage editing anything on a PC.

I will attach the new scanned ones and hopefully they will be OK.

Any help really is appreciated.

[silverfox1961]

I have reverted to the old method of sticking something over the personal details - given up with ever being able to manage editing anything on a PC.

I will attach the new scanned ones and hopefully they will be OK.

Any help really is appreciated.

 

 

I hate to break it to you but there is still some data showing on photo2 1.pdf. Umpteenth time lucky

[n1ch3s]

Thank you -

I'm almost ready to admit defeat - one last time. I'm sorry for the complete hash I've made of it.

[silverfox1961]

Well done. I think you have it.

 

As it stands, it is my belief that they are in breach of PoFA in that they are only giving the driver the right to appeal. They are not giving the keeper any opportunity to appeal the charge.

 

If this went to court, you could show this piece of garbage to the judge and I suspect you would win. This is IPC misinformation at its best.

[Sidewinder]

SSS/PE are a shambles with paperwork. They threatened and then got DR+ to write to one motorist three months AFTER the IPC adjudicated against the ticket being issued due to incorrect signage!

[n1ch3s]

Hi - would you advise ignoring them or should I be writing to challenge it?

Thanks

[ericsbrother]

Ignore them, if they send a LBA then rebut that but at this stage the only people wasting stamps should be them. If you respond they think you are a waverer and will continue to argue and badger you. This way they are more likely to cut their losses and give up.

[n1ch3s]

Thanks for that. I'll hold on and see if anything else comes. Are you ok if I come back to you if something else comes through? All your advice has really helped me. Regards

[ericsbrother]

They would be unwise to go any further but yes, if you get anything else from the parking co post again so we can consider.

[n1ch3s]

They would be unwise to go any further but yes, if you get anything else from the parking co post again so we can consider.

Hi, have received a letter today in connection with the PCN I received on 21 June 2015. It is from DRP (Debt Recovery Plus) and is demanding payment for £160, with a payment date of 15/09/15. Any advice what to do now would be appreciated - thanks

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

Normally, if it's gone to debt collectors, you're coming to the end of the process. Have a read around the forum for other DR+ threads and you'll see they can't do anything.

 

HB

[silverfox1961]

Totally agree with HB. Debt collectors have as much power over you that I have. Erm? That'll be none then. DR+ are the parking industry's pet DCA who will send two or three letters before sending it back with 'a recommendation' that legal action be taken. This is more misinformation.

 

Ignore until you get something of substance (LBA?) If they are silly enough to try court action, help can be provided.

[ericsbrother]

just ask yourself why are DR+ asking for £160. Answer- if yoy are mug enough to believe that they have any clout then you are mug enough to pay a bit extra for your stupidity. If you looked them up to see if they are a licenced deposit taker you will see that they are not which means that if the debt was real and you paid them then the original debtor can still demand that you pay them as well as the payment to DR+ isnt protected. Shows you what a bunch of cowboys operate in this area.

[n1ch3s]

Hello again.

 

Normally, if it's gone to debt collectors, you're coming to the end of the process. Have a read around the forum for other DR+ threads and you'll see they can't do anything.

 

HB

 

Thank you for your help will follow your advice

[n1ch3s]

Totally agree with HB. Debt collectors have as much power over you that I have. Erm? That'll be none then. DR+ are the parking industry's pet DCA who will send two or three letters before sending it back with 'a recommendation' that legal action be taken. This is more misinformation.

 

Ignore until you get something of substance (LBA?) If they are silly enough to try court action, help can be provided.

 

Thanks again for your help - will wait and see what comes next!

[n1ch3s]

just ask yourself why are DR+ asking for £160. Answer- if yoy are mug enough to believe that they have any clout then you are mug enough to pay a bit extra for your stupidity. If you looked them up to see if they are a licenced deposit taker you will see that they are not which means that if the debt was real and you paid them then the original debtor can still demand that you pay them as well as the payment to DR+ isnt protected. Shows you what a bunch of cowboys operate in this area.

 

Thanks again for your advice - will see what comes next!

[honeybee13]

n1ch3s, have you viewed any threads about DR+ yet please? I'm not sure you have. There is a search facility on CAG that can bring up relevant threads.

 

If you do, you could find a lot of reassurance seeing that nothing has happened to other people when they've been threatened by DR+.

 

HB

[n1ch3s]

Hello again

- as before everyone was so helpful before and I thought maybe that was the end of the fiasco

 

 

today have come home to a letter from Gladstones Solicitors with the paragraph that reads

 

 

'as all other attempts have failed, our client MAY now instruct us to take legal action against you in County Court' .

 

 

It then requests £160 within 14 days with payment to go to DRPL.

 

 

Can you please advise me what to do now and what the implications may be. Thank you all again

[silverfox1961]

Well if that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is. If Gladstones are going to try this on, I would welcome it as they are not very good at getting results for their clients.

 

The bosses behind Gladstones run the IPC and the IAS so it is in their interest to harass you a bit more.

 

As far as I can tell, this PPC took no one to court last year so whether they will this time, who knows?

[n1ch3s]

Well if that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is. If Gladstones are going to try this on, I would welcome it as they are not very good at getting results for their clients.

 

The bosses behind Gladstones run the IPC and the IAS so it is in their interest to harass you a bit more.

 

As far as I can tell, this PPC took no one to court last year so whether they will this time, who knows?

 

Thanks for reply. It's all so incestuous and a minefield. Do you think I should just ignore this letter?

[silverfox1961]

I would but I'm not you! I would be willing to let them try it on with a judge should they try it on. As IPC members do not follow the PoFA 2012, they will have some difficulty trying to rely on it in a courtroom.

[ericsbrother]

Gladstones are a company of solicitors whose 2 partners also own the IPC/IAS amongst others

including another of the parking industry dca's.

 

 

They are acting as a dca in this case and note the word MAY and the context of it.

They dont even have an instruction from Sussex Security to send out the letter they have let alone anything else.

 

 

they are telling you to pay another dca a sum that was never owed in the first place

even if there was a contractual debt.

 

Ignore them and come back again if they send you a letter headed letter befoe action or letter before claim

and we will advise you how to respond,

 

 

Again the Gladstones lbc fail to meet the requirements under civil procedure rules

so it is difficult to tell whether they are incompetent, lazy or attempting to deceive.

[dx100uk]

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/04/private-parking-fines-judges-rule-against-motorists

 

 

it is NOT A FINE

and they esp martin lewis should not be usin that word in relation to private parking INVOICES!