UKCPS letter - help!

[Jodieluke]

Hi guys - really need some advice!

 

 

I received a PCN for allegedly parking without a valid permit around three months ago, I foolishly disregarded this and thought nothing more of the matter.

 

 

Imagine my surprise when I received the below correspondence - This is the first letter I have received with regards to this matter and was wondering how best to proceed?

[madmatt101]

I'm sure someone will be along soon to give some advice, however I did notice that they can't use a spell checker on their template letter

[Jodieluke]

This is a private parking company we're talking about madmatt101

[Bazooka Boo]

Timescales,

 

When did you park,?

When did you receive the NTK,?

[Jodieluke]

Bazooka Boo - the date of the alleged offence was 6th June 2015, the letter received from UKCPS is dated 27th August 2015.

[Bazooka Boo]

ericsbrother is a dab hand at this, and he will tell you how to put them back in their box.

 

Where was it?

 

And when did you receive the NTK?

[Jodieluke]

It was in a car park which I now know belongs to a housing association, in Leeds.

 

 

By NTK I trust you mean notice to keeper? I've not received any correspondence prior to this, although from my experience I'm aware you normally receive one or two letters prior to this.

[Bazooka Boo]

Well if you've not received the NTK (yes you're correct) then they have failed horrendously IMO.

 

You should have received the NTK any time from day 29 to day 56 from the date of alleged offence.

Did you have a ticket on the screen?

[Sidewinder]

That has to qualify as one of the most appallingly written, unprofessional pre-action letters I have ever seen. My dog is more literate!

 

If it were me I would write back and invite them to take me to court on the basis that they have failed to abide by the conditions of the Protection Of Freedoms Act a,d correspondingly their issue is with the driver, not the keeper of the vehicle. Any action will be vigorously defended on those grounds, they WILL lose and you will be seeking costs and challenging their right to seek keeper details from the DVLA.

 

That is my opinion - but there are far better qualified to comment and I am sure they will do so in due course!

[ericsbrother]

I agree with the above sentiments regarding this letter, it is appaling in its tone and content.

You should reply to them quoting their reference number and say that this is the first communication you have received regarding the alleged event and as such it cannot be construed to be a Notice to Keeper as required by the protocols of the Protection of freedoms Act of 2012 as 1) it is issued out of time and 2) does not contain the necessary information regarding the event and the supposed breach. Furthermore it fails miserably to contain the correct wording to be considered a letter before action under the pre-action protocols of the Civil Procedure Regulations.

As there is no keeper liability due to UKPCS failure to follow procedures any further demands will be reported as harassment under both criminal law and civil tort. Copy letter to Patrick Troy of the BPA and make sure that UKPCS know that you have done so. Get a proof of posting cert from the Post Office for the letter. If they then say that they have sent an NTK then you ask for "strict proof" of this including proof of postage within the prescribed time.

[Jodieluke]

Thank you guys - really appreciate your help, its touching that so many people are willing to help others in these matters - otherwise these cowboys will continue to get away with their appalling behaviour.

 

 

Out of interest - is there a certain template letter that fits the criteria of this? I'm terrible at letter writing ::

[silverfox1961]

Hi,

No letter template as such as each case is different. If you want constructive criticism, draft a reply here and let others offer advice on it. Obviously, don't include your personal details on the draft.

 

BTW, I fully agree with all the above advice

[ericsbrother]

use the words in my post #10, that will be enough.

It might not stop the demands but they will know that you know they dont have a leg to stand on. Always refer to yourself as the keeper of the vehicle rather than by name or saying things like "I did" or "I was". Use of the third person doesnt indicate who was driving so cannot be construed in that way.

[Jodieluke]

use the words in my post #10, that will be enough.

It might not stop the demands but they will know that you know they dont have a leg to stand on. Always refer to yourself as the keeper of the vehicle rather than by name or saying things like "I did" or "I was". Use of the third person doesnt indicate who was driving so cannot be construed in that way.

 

 

 

To whom it may concern,

On Tuesday, 1st September 2015, I received correspondence from your company, regarding ticket reference *******, allegedly issued 10th June 2015, which states that I have 14 days to respond before the matter is issued to court.

This is the first correspondence that I have received regarding this alleged event, and as such, it cannot be construed to be a Notice to Keeper, as required by the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as 1) it is issued out of time and 2) it does not contain the necessary information regarding the event and alleged breach.

Furthermore, it fails to contain the correct wording to be considered a letter before action, under the pre-action protocols of the Civil Procedure Regulations.

As there is no keeper liability, due to UKPCS’ failure to follow procedures, any further demands will be reported as harassment under both criminal law and civil tort.

For transparency, I have also issued a copy of this correspondence to Patrick Troy, of the BPA, to bring this matter to their attention.

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Hows this?

[silverfox1961]

Pretty good but if you don't mind, I will also have a go and between us we can see if we can find a 'killer' letter.

 

Dear Sir Madam,

I am in receipt of you letter dated (?) which was received on 1st September 2015 and the contents are noted.

 

Firstly, this is the first correspondence I have received from you and based on the date of the alleged parking incident, you are out of time to enforce this by virtue of the PoFA 2012 as you made no contact within the prescribed enforcement period.

 

Secondly, your letter lays out no legal grounds as you have failed to lay out a case within this letter.

 

Thirdly, you letter is badly laid out and fails to ensure that it is headed by the words 'Letter Before Action'

 

Fourthly, you claim that you will include interest at 10% above base rate is incorrect. If this matter were to proceed to court, all you could claim is the statutory interest, nothing more.

 

Unless you provide absolute proof that letters have posted by you, you should either cancel this charge but if you do decide to proceed with court action, I will fully defend this action.

 

As there is no keeper liability, due to UKPCS’ failure to follow procedures, any further demands will be reported as harassment under both criminal law and civil tort.

 

I will also be sending a copy of your very poorly worded letter and my response to Patrick Troy of the BPA to highlight your poor practices.

 

Yours faithfully etc.

 

 

That is what I would put but of course it is your choice as to whether to use it or a combination of both.

 

You still have time for others to comment.

[Jodieluke]

Pretty good but if you don't mind, I will also have a go and between us we can see if we can find a 'killer' letter.

 

 

What bout this then?

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am in receipt of you letter dated 27th August 2015, which was received on 1st September 2015 and the contents are noted.

I can confirm that I was the registered owner and keeper of the vehicle, registration **** ***, on the date in question. However, this is the first correspondence I have received from you in association to this matter, and based on the date of the alleged parking incident, you are out of time to enforce this by virtue of the PoFA 2012 - as you made no contact within the prescribed enforcement period.

Furthermore, your letter lays out no legal grounds, as you have failed to outline your case against the registered owner and keeper, and it is also poorly laid out - failing to ensure that it is headed by the words ‘Letter before Action’.

In addition, you claim that you will include interest at 10% above base rate is incorrect. If this matter were to proceed to court, all you could claim is the statutory interest, nothing more.

Unless you provide absolute proof that previous letters addressed to the registered owner and keeper have been posted by you, then you should cancel this charge in full.

As there is no keeper liability, due to UKPCS’ failure to follow procedures, any further demands will be reported as harassment under both criminal law and civil tort.

If you do decide to proceed with court action, then I intend on fully defending this case.

For transparency, I will also be sending a copy of your very poorly worded letter, as well as, my response to Patrick Troy, of the BPA, to highlight your poor practices.

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

 

[silverfox1961]

I would happily send that. In my (humble) opinion, that is all that is needed. I would still let ericsbrother look it over as he is superb at this stuff.

[Jodieluke]

Thank you silverfox1961 - much appreciated!

[ericsbrother]

That will do fine, there is more you can sayIF they do send a LBA but they would be foolish to do so now you have denied liability under the PoFA and created a paper trail.

UKPCS have also been in the news recently regarding their criminality. Thye say they have sacked a number of scapegoats, I mean individual s who were caught out committing fraud but we will wait an see if the get a knock on the door from the police (if only). I bet when they collect their sanction points from the BPA they will just join the IPC as the other liars cheats and thieves have done.

[Jodieluke]

Good afternoon... I received the following correspondence from UKCPS today off of the back of my previous letter, which they seem to be referring to as an appeal?

 

 

This letter doesn't advise what the next steps are, or even address the points in my previous correspondence. what's everyone's thoughts?

[ericsbrother]

They are famous for their "disappearing ticket" and as they are quoting the IPC appeals procedure then they are not claiming keeper liability under the PoFA as the IPC seem to think that the law doesnt apply to them and older superceded case law is what counts. In reality they assert that the keeper was driving at the time, which is not what the law allows them to assume.

Next steps? Ignore the dumb gits until sucj time they (or their solicitor) send you a letter before claim or lba and then you can reqquote the previous statements and correspondence and point out that the appeal procedures were not followed to no keeper liability for that error as well.

[Cardiff Devil]

UKCPS are absolutely toothless. I received the very same "14 day notice before the matter is issued into court" letter about 2 months ago now, and despite me writing back saying "fine, I'll see you there, bring cake", I've heard precisely jack-all since.

 

You've replied as much as can be reasonably expected, so ignore them from this point on. Only respond to them if actual stamped court papers arrive, but frankly you've more chance of finding Willy Wonka's Golden Ticket on your doormat in the morning.

[Jodieluke]

Alas - the next instalment of the saga has arrived, I've now received correspondence from a solicitors in relation to the PCN, as detailed below, any advice on how to proceed would be much appreciated - I've now been requested to pay £250....

[Bazooka Boo]

Ha ha ha, how very foolish.......

 

See erics last post for advice on how to bat back, incredible!

[ericsbrother]

usual story, Miahs are acting as unliceneced debt collectors and not as solicitors. This is to frighten you into paying money that is not due. ask yourself why it is suddenly £250?

So, respond to Miahs saying no keeper liability so please refer the matter to the driver at the time who UKPCS are obliged to identify for themselves.