NCP PCN - Asda, Cardiff Bay - DCBL DCA sending out letter with enforcement fees on them!

[Bailiff Advice]

When will the details be up? Does it give the PPC parasites carte blanche to rip off?

 

A copy of the judgment is on the private parking ticket section in the motoring section of the forum.

 

BPA have put the following announcment on their website:

 

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/british-parking-association-calls-for-summit-following-supreme-court-decision

[Bailiff Advice]

I would also add that you can complain to the BPA and the DVLA too. The contract that NGPM have with the DVLA to get keeper details has this clause

 

 

 

Clearly they (and DCBL who are BPA Members) are in breach of their (KADOE) contract so the BPA/DVLA should be made aware.

 

Thank you so much. I have spoken briefly to the BPA today on this matter. They have confirmed as well that DCBL are an AOS member.

[brassnecked]

Wonder when the bottom feeder DCA and Credit card companies will try to twist this to legalise their penalty charges at present unlawful? Just a thought

[brassnecked]

This judgment may well affect any complaint by belle inso far she infringed the rules and was Invoiced we need to look at any mitigations, and irregularities. This must be separated out from the inter alia unlawful correspondence sent to her, which of itself is inconsionable and downright misleading at best, fraudulent at worse.

[craigdk]

I've been reading this thread with interest, because I too have received a Notice Of Debt Assignment from dcbl on behalf on New Generation Parking Management. I parked in a private car park of a block of flats while visiting family in their new flat in Cardiff bay.

I too ignored previous correspondence as suggested mainly on Money Saving Supermarket forum.

 

I have checked, and I have no CCJ's against me.

 

Has there been any further development on the OP's case?

 

I have included a copy of the letter I have had in the post.

[ploddertom]

I guess until we hear something from the OP you should follow a similar pattern of making complaint to those organisations stated in this thread.

[Erica_H]

Hi, I have also received one of these notifications today in the post - do you suggest paying the £180 please - any assistance would be gratefully received!

[silverfox1961]

Hi, I have also received one of these notifications today in the post - do you suggest paying the £180 please - any assistance would be gratefully received!

Hi and welcome.

 

Pay nothing is my opinion. This is for a parking ticket and the excess fees added are wrong. This seems to be a new tactic being tried as this is the 3rd one this week.

 

Follow the advice already mentioned on this thread.

[craigdk]

Hi Silverfox,

 

I intend to contact both the British parking Association and The Ministry of Justice as suggested.

But I'm unsure of the role each of them play in this.

 

What would be my cause for writing to each of them?

 

From what I have understood, dcbl

- being a baillif and court enforcement

- have gone beyond their remit in threatening increased fees, and would not be able to collect anyway as I have no CCj's held against me.

 

What role do BPA and MOJ play in this and what should I tell them?

 

Thank you very much for any advice.

[silverfox1961]

The BPA monitor and punish parking companies where they transgress. NGP are members of the BPA so the actions of their agents (DCBL) need to be brought to their attention.

 

I believe the MOJ is responsible for the laws regarding bailiffs so a complaint should be made to them

[brassnecked]

The letters breach the law as they are adding unlawful fees with no legal sanction to collect, fraud imho That is for the complaint to MOJ

BPA should be informed of their members unlawful shenanigans around collection.

Challenging the actual invoice for the original parking infringement may be difficult after the Parking Eye win in the Supreme Court the other day, but you kick them for their unlawful collection attempts. Other Caggers will no doubt be along with better advice soon.

[craigdk]

Thank you very much for the help.

I'll tackle the original parking infringement with the parking owners, should really have done so from the beginning!

[silverfox1961]

This morning, I emailed New Generation Parking to see if I get a response. whether I get one is another matter. I may just stir things up with DCBL as well

[belle1995]

Hi all,

I haven't disappeared but I have nothing to add at the moment. I will keep you all updated on this as I'm sure there are plenty of others who have received these notices from dcbl

[Bailiff Advice]

In fact, the letters from DCBL are becoming more common and Trading Standards are currently investigating.

 

I will be posting some further information in a few moments.

[silverfox1961]

I see that Bailiff Advice (in her alter ego) has posted links to this thread over on MSE. The more the merrier is my opinion.

 

As mentioned over there, contact Trading Standards.

 

Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations, the sending of misleading and/or harassing letters is a criminal offence so you could also complain to the local plod but they will just say it is a civil matter and ignore your pleadings.

 

I would also contact the landowners and make them aware of what NGP are doing in their name.

 

IF anyone from DCBL actually do turn up on your doorsteps, record them as if they try bailiff tactics without the authority to do so, it will cost them dear.

 

Anyone feel like contacting Channel 5 to make them aware of what their 'stars' from Can' Pay etc. are doing!

[Bailiff Advice]

HCEOs said:

I agree with the comments already made, they have illegally edited a prescribed form to infer more powers than they actually have and potentially charge fees that are not permissible.

 

One for the FCA and MoJ to deal with.

 

HCEOs said:

In this instance the main complaints lie with the FCA and the MoJ although the HCEOA may also be interested in some capacity.

 

DCBL's US based HCEO is not a Director of this company nor a shareholder. She merely gives them her authority to enforce High Court writs in her name since the rapid demise of her own company.

 

Strangely, their former HCEO (who gave his name to over 15 companies at one time) is still listed as a Director and minority shareholder.

 

It is always disappointing when a small relatively new company like this continually break rules and regulations. The enforcement industry has made some positive steps in recent years and whilst it's by no means perfect it is these very actions that drag us back.

 

Thank you HCEO. Your comments have been most helpful and so too have the many messages that I have received following my posts on this thread and on other forums in the past couple of days regarding this and other identical letters from DCBL. It would seem from the messages that some people have taken their complaints to Trading Standards, their MP's and the BPA (British Parking Association).

 

This subject is of huge significance and even more so, in light of the hugely disappointing outcome from the Supreme Court in the case of Barry Beavis. Unless the government amend legislation (most likely to the Protection of Freedoms Act) there is the real and distinct possibility that there will be an influx of 'rouge' ticketers charging extortionant sums of money to motorists who park on private land. Worst still, those rouge operators may well employ debt collection companies who may resort to copying the illegal and devious methods attempted by DCBL to recover the ‘debt’ and in so doing, attempting to extort from the individual ‘fees’ of up £365

 

In the first instance, it should be made clear that in relation to the ‘debt’ being enforced by DCBL, there is no judgment or court order and instead, this company are attempting to mislead unsuspecting members of the public into believing that:

 

The Notice of Enforcement is a statutory document.

 

Unless payment is made within 14 days that a bailiff will visit their premises and charge a 'second stage' enforcement fee' of £160 (and possibly also a 'third stage enforcement fee' of £265).

 

By including logos from the Information Commissioners Office, the Ministry of Justice and the BPA (British Parking Association) on the notice that this bodies have authorised them to collect this debt.

 

I will address the serious matter of the discrepancies in the 'Notice of Enforcement' in a separate post.

 

I notice that this thread has been viewed over 2,500 times. Many of those visitors may be unaware that DCBL are the initials for Direct Collection Bailiff Ltd and they are the company featured on the popular Channel 5 programme: Can't Pay? We'll take it away.

 

The poster has displayed a letter that she has received from DCBL which is entitled Notice of Enforcement. The notice displayed bears an uncanny and remarkable resemblance to the statutory Notice of Enforcement issued in April 2014 under the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. The truth of the matter is that the notice is not a statutory notice. Instead, it is a notice that (for want of a better word) that has been cleverly doctored to resemble a Notice of Enforcement. Below are the changes or omissions that have been made.

 

Once again, the statutory Notice of Enforcement looks like this.

 

 

Statutory NoE: Name of debtor

 

DCBL NoE: Name (the word 'debtor' has been omitted).

 

 

 

Statutory NoE: Details of Court Judgment or order or enforcement power by virtue of which the debt is enforceable.

 

DCBL NoE: Details of the Parking Charge Notice enforcement power by virtue of which the debt is enforceable.

 

 

 

Statutory NoE: If you do not pay or agree a payment arrangement by the date above, an enforcement agent will visit you and seize your belongings-this is called 'taking control of goods. These belongings may be sold to pay the money you owe. These actions will increase the costs of enforcement and these costs will be added to the amount already owed.

 

 

DCBL NoE: If you do not pay or agree a payment arrangement by the date above, an enforcement agent may visit you to open lines of communication. These actions will increase the costs of enforcement and these costs will be added to the amount already owed.

 

 

PS: I will address the charges that DCBL are attempting to claim later on today.

 

A copy of DCBL's Terms and Conditions for Debt Recovery can be read here.

 

The company are registered with the Information Commissioners Office. They also state at the foot of the Terms and Conditions notice that they are also authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (their number being: 0652997). I am struggling trying to find their registration details on the FCA site. If anyone can post a link could they do please do so.

[belle1995]

http://fca-consumer-credit-interim.force.com/CS_RegisterSearchPageNew?accId=652997

I think this is it BA

[Bailiff Advice]

Thank you very much.

 

According to the following link DCBL have only been granted interim permission to conduct credit activities and this status will last until DCBL have completed their application process....and the FCA have granted a decision regarding authorisation.

 

With such a pending application I am shocked that they have tampered with a statutory Notice of Enforcement in this way.

 

https://www.the-fca.org.uk/interim-permission-consumer-credit#sthash.Tdj5JDUk.dpuf

[belle1995]

Your welcome:-) I looked at the site whilst I was on there and I can't make a complaint direct to them

[brassnecked]

Contact Watchdog, I'm sure they would like to take a pop at Channel 5s tame bailiffs, who seem to get away with all sorts of unlawful shenanigans.

[craigdk]

I'd like to thank the OP for posting this topic, and sincerely thank all the contributors for waylaying my fears when I first received the letter from dcbl. Without your help I would certainly have taken the easier option and parted with money they don't deserve.

[Bailiff Advice]

It is difficult to know where to start in trying to unravel the fees that DCBL are attempting to charge.

 

The starting point will be to look at DCBL's Notice of Enforcement in the following link:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?454888-dcbl-notice-of-enforcement-re-New-Generation-Parking-charge-notice&p=4814546&viewfull=1#post4814546

 

The 'Notice of Enforcement' states that the 'debt' was £100 and that a compliance Fee' of £240 has been added making a total of £340 and warns that if payment is not made by the date outlined that a 'Second stage enforcement fee of £265 may be applied bringing the debt to £605

 

Oddly, different fees can be found in DCBL's Notice of Assignment:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?454888-dcbl-notice-of-enforcement-re-New-Generation-Parking-charge-notice&p=4814565&viewfull=1#post4814565

 

This letter refers to the debt being £180 and warns that if payment is not made by the date outlined that a 'Second enforcement stage fee of £160 will be added (bringing the debt to £340) and that a 'Third enforcement stage fee' of £265 may then be added.....also bringing the debt to £605

 

For the avoidance of doubt, there is NO legal basis for DCBL to be charging these fees. I can only guess that their 'fees' have been invented by using the model outlined in statutory fee table under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/schedule/made?view=plain

 

The documents sent by Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd (DCBL) to the poster do not relate to an isolated case. Others motorists have posted identical notices on other forums.

 

Direct Collection Bailiff Ltd are an experienced company that enforce (amongst other debts) court judgments that have been transferred to the High Court for enforcement. Their directors are experienced in the field of enforcing court judgments and would have significant knowledge of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and all its associated legislation (including the statutory fees and statutory forms) that must be used.

 

The company have an agreement (or assignment) with New Generation Parking Ltd to try to recover parking charges for parking at the Capital Retail Park. These 'debts' have never been subject to a court judgment. Their legality has never been tested in court.

 

Other 'bailiff companies' have contracts with similar parking companies. However those companies (normally Rossendales and Newlyn) ensure that the correspondence that they send to the motorist is sent form the 'debt collection' arm of their business and NOT from their main bailiff company. Naturally they cannot recover fees from the motorist. Instead, they receive commission from the parking company if they are able to secure payment.

 

By comparison, DCBL are writing to the motorist with correspondence clearly stating that the firm are 'bailiffs and High Court Enforcement agents. They are including a 'Notice of Enforcement' which has been carefully doctored to bear an uncanny resemblance to the statutory Notice of Enforcement provided under the Taking Control of Goods Regulations. They are attempting to charge fees that are not legal and worse still, threatening that the fees will increase when an 'enforcement agent' makes a personal visit to the motorists home.

 

I would hope that the British Parking Association and DVLA (amongst others) take robust action against this company as soon as possible and ensure that any payments that they have received from other motorists is quickly refunded.

[brassnecked]

They should be subject to a police investigation, as these unlawful letters are instruments of extortion and fraudulent. Of course the plod will dismiss this as Civil.

[Sellsy39]

Hello everyone, just thought i would add that i have just received the exact same letter as belle1995 from the same place, i was advised to ignore this and wait for a court letter ? is this right ?

I am registered disabled and my car is from motability and at the time had a tax disc that stated it was a disabled car, when i received the original letter in 2014 i did reply and state this but heard nothing.

Sorry the fine was for not displaying a valid disabled badge.

 

Thanks

sellsy39