Premier Parking Ltd PCN - now ZZPS chasing

[SumOne]

no you are missing the point..

ZZPS are a DCA

they are not a bailiff

and cant add anything to any 'debt'

they are totally powerless as with all DCA's on ANY DEBT

 

Cheers, that's a weight off my mind

[ericsbrother]

law on data protection is changing in feb 2018 so the parking bandits wont be able to pass you details on without risking getting done for doing so.

However, the DCA's involved in parking are mostly unlicenced anyway.

 

I'm in touch with my MP, i'm going to ask him to contact the relevant minister as Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act could do with amendment.

 

Complaint on its way to the FCA regarding ZZPS Ltd dubious practices, adding on charges, saying they are instructing solicitors.

 

Going to ask POPLA for a code directly as Premier Park aren't going to do it, thankfully Premier Park said they could not help when I appealed earlier because the matter was with their collection agent, so i'm hopeful in that extent.

[lookinforinfo]

Enron further to your mention of POFA,

I see that you are being charged an extra £30.

 

 

Many parking Companies are now adding that in their small print at the bottom of their notices in the Park Car thinking that this will cover them to charge more.

 

 

What it does is to make the whole contract with them unlawful.

 

If you read POFA s4 it states

(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

and here s9 [2] (d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice; and

(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

when they add that extra charge to their notice board they are in breach of their commitment to the BPA and IPC to act within the Law and this also should put them at odds with the DVLA.

 

 

But they are such a supine bunch that short of the parking companies machine gunning down motorists they appear not to rescind the use of their facilities to any company within the BPA or IPC associations.

 

 

They are as much use to the motorist as a chocolate fire guard.

[Enron]

My MP managed to get hold of a copy of the PCN which was forwarded to me

- ZZPS have added an additional £72 on as (an administration fee) which would run contrary to the above,

 

 

also there is a mention of 29 days in there by Premier Park,

 

 

really need to scan and put up but our scanner is broke at the moment.

[ericsbrother]

you know that anything from ZZPS is just garbage and their admin fees unlawful.

 

They are hoping your MP is really not that clued up and is only saying the right words to look like they are helping you.

 

Some are really clued up on these things so that may be a mistake on the parking co/ZZPS part.

 

Might be worth a bit of publicity if MP does see through it via local paper

( most MP's love their pictures in the press, it reminds the voters who thye are and many papers like a story they can make a local campaigning issue that doesnt involve politics)

[Enron]

Ericsbrother, thanks for your help

- there's a complaint on it's way to the FCA regarding addition of charges by ZZPS onto the alleged debt

- and the solicitors letters going out stating they are instructed by the DCA.

 

All the correct paperwork was delivered to our MP,

a PCN and even a reminder,

both of which we had not received.

 

 

Interestingly it stated that we have replied to every ZZPS letter but not there's - wonder why?

Because we haven't received them.

Said to MP that was would have either appealed or settled at an early date had these reached us.

 

 

And that Premier Park Ltd have been less than honest with both us and the MP,

they are not going to admit to anyone more so a serving MP that they are involved in dubious practice.

 

 

pushing him to see if a notice is "presumed sent unless proven otherwise" in Schedule 4 can be amended so that the parking company has to prove it's receipt with a signature. We'll update on this.

 

Trying to see if POPLA can help though, there e-mail has referred me back to Premier Park re not receiving a copy of the notice.

Technically i've just received it via the MP.

[Enron]

 

https://ibb.co/kSMyKv

 

 

ericbrother would be grateful if you could look at this to let me know if anything is wrong - have edited out personal details.

 

This is what arrived with my MPs letter of 18th July 2017, 128 days after the parking event occurred. Though they also included a reminder (also not received), a copy of a database with a number of dates purportedly linked to this parking charge notice. And a long rambling letter to justify that everything had been done above board.

[dx100uk]

pop it all in one pdf and upload

[Enron]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xcle1zp1uko8bn7/20170809143339695.pdf?dl=0

 

I've got an interesting response from the BPA regarding non receipt of the PCN, essentially saying if its not sent by recorded delivery you can't ascertain either way whether a letter was sent/received.

[lookinforinfo]

Well no one expected they would be any help. They have a reputation to uphold.

[ericsbrother]

I dont know if you have redacted the Premier letter but we cant see the date of the alleged event, the date that letter was sent etc so it is impossible to comment on whether it has any substance.

 

From the rest of your post I would say they are trying to create a false paper trail in the hope you or others you are corresponding with then believe that they did it all properly in the first place.

 

However, as a general comment, you are taking this all too seriously, they rarely get it right, they normally have no rights and corresponding with the BPA is pointless other than to show a parliamentary commission that they are not honest brokers should the matter ever be reconsidered for legislation.

 

I would let things rest now and make them do their worst at their expense, you aren't going to get them to give up making unfounded demands but that doesn't mean they are in any way right

 

, If they do decide to use the courts then anything you say beforehand wont change that.

They need to lie and bully people to get them to pay up or they wouldn't get a penny.

 

law says differently so usual pointless response from BPA

 

even if NTK sent out in time it isnt POFA compliant so no keeper liability.

 

Read paras 5,6, 8 and 9 of the act and you will see why

[Enron]

Sorry, redacted too much.

 

Date of event 12/03/2017 - date PCN was supposedly sent 20/03/2017, date reminder was supposedly sent 18/04/2017

 

Received neither.

 

I believe it's general fear tactics, and a false paper trail as you've highlighted.

 

Gonna sit tight and wait for something to happen, the ace up the sleeve is the Trust sign and having two witnesses that can testify that it was still present in March 2017.

[ericsbrother]

also, look at thier log of the incident that is the last page of your dropbox file.

 

They have altered the contents of the comments column 3 times in 2 days.

 

as there are only 4 other entires this means that they have been doctoring their files before sending it out.

 

Clearly they wouldnt need to do this if they had sent out the documents when they said they had and there is nothing else to change.

[Enron]

Indeed, why would you have to "change comments" over the course of those days, is that an indicator that items have been added into the timeline like a PCN, a Reminder, and another document?

[ericsbrother]

No, it is unlikely to be an addition as I assume a different flag would be raised, it is an alteration so straightforward doctoring of the comments.

If this was an insurance or financial co the FCA rules would have meant the person doing this would be out of a job.

[Enron]

As ever thanks for your help ericsbrother.

[Enron]

Nothing for a long time - and a DCBL debt collection letter turned up - with someone else's name attached - obviously I feel no need to correct them on this, and will see what other litter comes through the door subsequently.

[ericsbrother]

correct ref no or completely wrong content as well as name?

Worth a complaint to the ICO.

[Enron]

Will double check.

 

Just going to let it run whilst the incorrect name is there as will be at their expense.

 

Not forgetting that they are adding fee's which I believe is against FCA debt collection guidance.

[ericsbrother]

the unicorn food ax is a deliberate ploy to get the unaware to pay up because people might think that if it has gone from £100 to £160 it might go up again. However, if they ask for too much people start to rail against the tax and take the trouble to investigate or seek advice. If they said form the outset you owed £250 to pay for their gold plated carrots then peopel would tell them to get lost and not pay at all.

 

 

Why has the normal demand for money from a parking co gone from £80 to £100 over the last couple of years? because people will pay that and no more. Psychological barrier thing.

[Enron]

DCBL back for a second bite of the cherry, this time with a correctly named & addressed letter.

 

Lots of mitigating circumstances including this sign still being up when we visited.

[ericsbrother]

note it is the landowner that asks people nicely and now the chiselling gits at the parking co. Still, proof that the parking co doesnt have locus, they are mere agents despite what they say. This sign damages any claim they may bring beyond any redemption

[Enron]

A replacement machine was there as one person was looking at it using their phone.

 

However the above sign was also present.

[ericsbrother]

as said, the sign shows they dont have the rights they claim so expect letters but a court claim would be foolish for them

[Enron]

DCBL still sending out letters.... no doubt standard procedure, even if the possibility of them winning is next to nothing because of the above signage.