UKCPS ANPR PCN - Bristol Abbeywood BR005XX - NTK received.

[mechsman]

Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all Caggers. Long may the tradition of kicking the proverbial out of unfair companies continue.

 

 

just to update,

I received a further letter from UKCPS just before Christmas.

It was entitled debt recovery notice,

but I am presuming it's just been passed to the next desk in the office?

Redacted scan attached.

 

Ericsbrother, the signage detail is in the attachment on post 5.

 

I will get a site plan/pic up shortly.

 

I was reading up on the PP BlogSpot and he advises responding using the appeals process, if only to get the paper trail and show that it's rubbish.

 

I believe I am past that point now, but is there anything more I should do at this point in terms of response?

letter 3 redacted.pdf

[ericsbrother]

as you can see they are trying it on and now claiming £160 when no such debt exists.

 

Like their supposed NTK,

that has the wrong wording,

they know that if they want to claim keeper liability

then they have to obey the protocols of the POFA

this taradiddle doesnt do that.

 

What they are hoping for is that you now pay up in the belief that if you don't the amount will keep going up.

They rely on ignorance that matches theirs to earn a dishonest crust.

 

Their signage is fatally flawed as well,

no address for the company on it,

another POFA requirement

this is needed to create a contract, not just a keeper liability.

 

I wish Trading standards would enforce the law on this and make them refund everyone who paid when they weren't required to.

 

Unfortunately the commentators in the press don't seem to understand these points so they never see the light of day.

safe to ignore this.

[mechsman]

And so the comedy train rumbles on.

 

Today I received the letter attached.

 

It appears that UKCPS have passed their speculative invoice to their pet debt collectors.

 

Am I ok to continue ignoring,

or should I write to/phone the new clowns along the lines of "the debt is in dispute with your principle, therefore naff off!"?

letter 4 redacted.pdf

[dx100uk]

when have we ever said ring anyone? esp DCA's

where have we ever said a DCA has ANY powers whatsoever?

[ericsbrother]

if you had bothered to read any other thread where dca's are mentioned

you would have found the answer and that is exactly as dx100 says.

You ALWAYS ignore a dca because they have no interest in anything and no powers to do anything.

 

ask yourself why are they asking for £160 when the supposed debt is £100 at most?

 

Answer is because they know if you are stupid enough to think they have some authority you will pay this amount. Money for nothing for them.

[mechsman]

Ok, so it appears the pet debt collectors are intent on ratcheting up the scare factor.

 

Today I received the attached letter entitled "Notice of intended court action". Am I correct in assuming that this should be their last letter before they put up or shut up and actually put in for court papers?

 

Anything further I should do at this point in terms of prepping defence etc, just in case they do decide to actually try it on in court?

letter 5 redacted.pdf

[DragonFly1967]

Nope, probably at least one more due yet. This will be their last gasp effort to try and get something, anything out of you. It'll be their 'ever so generous' "Reduced Payment Offer", probably for £129 or there abouts.

 

Then DRP will go quiet. They might try it on with a letter from 'Zetith Collections', or a letter from SCS Law or Gladstones Solicitors (all of which will put the price back up to £160 and tell you to pay DRP). So while these letters might appear to be from SCS or Gladstones, in reality it's just a 'rent a letterhead service' so it's DRP in a party frock still desperate to get you to pay for the prom dress.

 

Only UKCPS can issue instructions to actually make a claim against you. DRP are only able to stamp their feet like a truculent toddler.

[mechsman]

Thanks for the fast reply. Okey doke. Filled for now then. There's probably at least 2 more full sets of letters to go for different tickets as well (different date/car for which I am the keeper). What a waste of paper!

[mechsman]

Righty, after a bit of a hiatus, during which DRP sent me one more begging letter,

I have received a letter from a new player in this game, miah solicitors (see attachment).

 

Am I correct in thinking that this is a "rent a letterhead" style letter and it should also get filed under "b for bin"?

 

Is there any further legwork I should do now in terms of prepping a defence etc in case UKCPS do actually attempt court with this?

letter 6 redacted.pdf

Edited March 11, 2018 by mechsman
attachment redaction misconfig

[disgruntled2007]

Righty, after a bit of a hiatus, during which DRP sent me one more begging letter, I have received a letter from a new player in this game, miah solicitors (see attachment). Am I correct in thinking that this is a "rent a letterhead" style letter and it should also get filed under "b for bin"? Is there any further legwork I should do now in terms of prepping a defence etc in case UKCPS do actually attempt court with this? [ATTACH=CONFIG]71023[/ATTACH]

 

Another one for the file...

[mechsman]

Another one for the file...

 

As in the file labelled "bin" or the file labelled "highway robbers masquerading as solicitors" (or both lol)?

[dx100uk]

urn..NO

its a letter before claim

and you have a response pack yes like attached

[DragonFly1967]

Lovely how a firm of (so called) solicitors are breaking the law by adding a £1 "administration charge" for credit/debit card payments.

 

As there's no "administration charge" if you use bank transfer, that £1 fee is illegal.

 

That's without going into the additional £60 (on top of the original 'PCN') which is completely unenforceable unless you've admitted that you were the driver and even then it's pretty sketchy unless the £60 is specified on the signs.

[mechsman]

urn..NO

its a letter before claim

and you have a response pack yes like attached

It's not titled as such?

I received nothing other than what was in the scanned attachment, so nothing like the form you have shown. Is this a standard form, or should I expect to received a version of this from the solicitor?

 

Lovely how a firm of (so called) solicitors are breaking the law by adding a £1 "administration charge" for credit/debit card payments.

 

As there's no "administration charge" if you use bank transfer, that £1 fee is illegal.

 

That's without going into the additional £60 (on top of the original 'PCN') which is completely unenforceable unless you've admitted that you were the driver and even then it's pretty sketchy unless the £60 is specified on the signs.

 

Yeah, I thought adding an "admin charge" for the most common method of payment was a bit cheeky.

 

I have not given the identity of the driver, I would be defending any attempted claim as the keeper. Copies of the signage are in the attachments in post 5 if required.

Edited March 11, 2018 by mechsman
info added

[DragonFly1967]

It's not only cheeky, it's outright illegal.

 

 

I know the signage, I don't live a million miles away and have been to the retail park at Abbeywood many times, although I still try to avoid it whenever possible (shopping in general that is ).

 

If they actually waste the money to take you to court, presuming that you're in Bristol, I'd be happy to come along for moral support and so as to see these sharks well & truly beaten. They don't have a lot of chance of winning this.

[dx100uk]

so a non compliant letter of claim when PAP doesn't apply to PPC claims anyway...

[mechsman]

It's not only cheeky, it's outright illegal.

 

 

I know the signage, I don't live a million miles away and have been to the retail park at Abbeywood many times, although I still try to avoid it whenever possible (shopping in general that is ).

 

If they actually waste the money to take you to court, presuming that you're in Bristol, I'd be happy to come along for moral support and so as to see these sharks well & truly beaten. They don't have a lot of chance of winning this.

Ahhhh, righto. I don't live a million miles from there either. You're welcome to come if they actually try it.

so a non compliant letter of claim when PAP doesn't apply to PPC claims anyway...

 

Non compliant on two counts? 1. not titled correctly and 2. no response pack?

[dx100uk]

well atleast those but as its not a letter of claim ...anyway.

PAP doesn't apply to PPC claim so ignore it .

[lookinforinfo]

That's without going into the additional £60 (on top of the original 'PCN') which is completely unenforceable unless you've admitted that you were the driver and even then it's pretty sketchy unless the £60 is specified on the signs.

 

Small point Dragon Fly. The way I read POFA regarding extra charges, it applies to the Keeper, so if the driver is the keeper then the charge cannot be added. Is that right or have I the wrong end of the stick?

 

I never cease to be amazed how the parking cowboys can dredge up such solicitors. If they spent half as much time getting their acts together they could dispense with second rate questionable legals altogether.

[ericsbrother]

You are right, when keeper liability is created it is for the amount on the sign/invoice(NTK and they cat add anything else even if the sign at the car park mentions additioanl fees because the keeper was never party to this contract.

 

The reason they ass this extra is because it is suggested to them by Will and John who then use the exta money to pay for their legal acction. Obviously they then add another £50 legal fees on top at court because most punters dont realise they are being double charged.

Edited March 12, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[mechsman]

So if defending as keeper, this would be something to highlight to the judge as being a crock of the proverbial then?

[DragonFly1967]

So if defending as keeper, this would be something to highlight to the judge as being a crock of the proverbial then?

 

Absolutely!

 

If the keeper wasn't driving, how on earth could they possibly be a party to a contract that was (so the PPC claim) agreed to by the driver. Whilst these so called "enforcement costs" might be recoverable (still dubious) from the driver, they most certainly are not recoverable from the keeper as the keeper wasn't the driver.

[mechsman]

Hypothetically, if the keeper were driving, would they have to reveal this to the judge?

I would presume the answer would be yes, if asked, but no otherwise?

 

If the keeper were driving at the time, I would therefore assume that it would NOT be wise to highlight the above, even if defending as keeper?

[DragonFly1967]

Hypothetically, yes, but only because it would be very unwise indeed to lie to a Judge

 

However, by the time it gets to court they are suing you as the keeper not the driver, so it doesn't matter (in law) if they find out who the driver was, it's not them that they're suing.

 

This is where most of the claims we see fall down as they claim "driver and/or keeper", which is useless. They have to choose who they're suing and why, not just throw a net in the water and see what they catch.

 

99 times out of 100, the Judge won't ask, because it doesn't matter.

[shamrocker]

I know DF has answered you while I was typing, but I've posted regardless.

 

You're not at the court stage yet, so don't worry yourself over stuff that has yet to happen. In any case, it will depend on whether they chase you as the driver or keeper. If they chase you as the keeper, then the question of driver becomes irrelevant - then they need to be POFA compliant.

 

If they chase you as the driver then your question is more valid and could well arise.

 

As ericsbrother has stated about a thousand times, if you're asked.

you are under no obligation to incriminate yourself.

 

The burden of proof is on the claimant to produce evidence in support of their claim, with the key aspect being evidence of the identity of the driver.

 

EB will probably give you a suitable response, but I know we will all behave differently when faced with that question in an intimidating environment.

 

I would personally be concerned about giving a judge any reason to find my body language questionable and might respond with -

 

 

"I am not the only person with access to the vehicle,

Sir/Madam, but I don't personally have any recollection of parking at that location on the date stated.

However, the more pertinent question is why the claimant has not produced evidence to prove the identity of the driver - evidence they should have gathered prior to issuing a claim.

 

Their claim is against the driver, yet they have supplied no evidence whatsoever of the their identity. To blindly assume that I was the driver is absurd and is a serious flaw in their case."

 

 

They may ask if you are able to identify the driver, to which you can simply say "no".

 

 

Look on the Parking Prankster's Blog site and do a search for "India Beaven"

- the result that comes top outlines a case that was dropped over this very point.

 

They may try to be clever and remain unclear about whether they are chasing the driver or the keeper, which is just a game to confuse those who are ignorant of the difference.

 

 

Do plenty of research and you'll soon see the two can be separated and successfully challenged quite easily.

Edited March 12, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing