TPS ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - Wrong Reg - boddingtons Gt Ducie Street, Francis Street, Manchester, M3 1PQ

[Dave962]

Hello

Back again

My latest ticked comes from Total Car Parks in Manchester (BPA).

I accidentally entered the wrong reg plate in and have duly received my letter.

I take it this gets ignored? I’m guessing presenting evidence has no gain?

thanks

 

[dx100uk]

Wrong reg is dealt with in the new guidelines. sort of being written out of a reason to issue a speculative invoice now

Still fill out our sticky please and scan stuff up

 

Dx

[Dave962]

1 Date of the infringement 30/9/22

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 5/10/22

 

3 Date received 10/10/22
 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Y
 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Y
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] N
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up n/a
 

7 Who is the parking company? Total car parks

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] boddingtons Gt Ducie Street (Francis Street), Francis Street, Manchester, M3 1PQ
 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

BPA

 

PCN.pdf

[FTMDave]

Have you got proof of payment?

[Dave962]

I certainly have. Email and text msgs 

[FTMDave]

Excellent news.  They got paid.  A wrong reg is legally "de minimis" ("the law does not deal with trivialities").

 

It's years since we've seen a PPC try court for a wrong reg case - because years ago when they tried the judges gave them a right kicking.

[Dave962]

Fantastic thanks.

 

I want to show them my proof, but I’m not sure that’s a good idea?

[FTMDave]

You will show them the proof - just not yet.

 

Let them continue to destroy the Amazon with their daft threats. 

 

If they ever send a Letter of Claim then reply with a version of post 10 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/450714-cel-anpr-pcn-morrisons-butterfly-walk-car-park-denmark-hill-camberwell-london-se5-8rw/#comments

 

Since this letter was drawn up not one Cagger has been taken to court.

 

Relax and laugh at them for the time being but do come back if a Letter of Claim turns up.

 

[Dave962]

Thanks a lot Dave.

The common consensus from what I can see is that the going rate for an invoice for this ‘crime’ is £20, which I feel is excessive for a genuine error like this, which can very simply be proven.

[brassnecked]

Its de minimis because they have suffered no loss a car parked they were paid.

[Homer67]

On 13/10/2022 at 07:31, Dave962 said:

Thanks a lot Dave.

The common consensus from what I can see is that the going rate for a fine for this ‘crime’ is £20, which I feel is excessive for a genuine error like this, which can very simply be proven.

NOT A FINE!!!

[Dave962]

Latest arrived today…

 

2022-09-30 DCBL DCA threat-o-gram.pdf

Edited November 18, 2022 by dx100uk
unredacted pdf sorted.

[FTMDave]

I've had to hide your post as you left your real name showing.

 

In any case it's a threatagram that you can laugh at and ignore.

[Dave962]

Sorry Dave, and thanks a lot for helping me out there well spotted.

 

I thought that may be the course of action so I’ll do just that.

[dx100uk]

PDF sorted

 

note it says in 2 places this debt is NOT subject to Bailiff Enforcement.

and note CAREFULLY what i have removed too.

 

dx

 

[Dave962]

Thanks DX

 

Again apologies and thanks for looking out for me. I’ve noted what you have done there and will take more care in future.

 

The note about not being subject to enforcement is very interesting and seems surprising on the face of it.

[dx100uk]

36 minutes ago, Dave962 said:

The note about not being subject to enforcement is very interesting and seems surprising on the face of it.

why?

 

dx

[Dave962]

It just seems bizarre that a letter off the bailiffs, is not subject to bailiff enforcement. Shows the whole exercise up as a sham

[dx100uk]

well thats because it is what all DCA's do in one way or another as they have ZERO legal powers on ANY DEBT.

people just dont READ letters properly...ever.

 

just because the name of the company has bailiff in it and they have a debt collection wing and they have a TV program about them as bailiffs, people dont realise they operate only on business debts, and landlord evictions, not consumer debt!

and a consumer debt can never be subject to bailiffs unless its been to court. and 9/10 is less than £600 so High Court bailiffs can never be asked for via a court.

 

dx

 

[brassnecked]

No you misunderstand the situation which is exactly what they want. DCBL are bailiffs and HCEO, aka Enforcement Agents, and that part is the Ch5 Don't Pay scenario. They also act as regular Debt Collectors, which unlike bailiffs are paper tiger's they have to put on a ThreatOgram not subject to bailiff action or they would be in the doo doo.

 

For bailiff involvement you would need to lose in court given a CCJ, which is  not then paid and as the debt is likely to be under £600 with a PCN claim they wouldn't likely be the bailiffs sent ,would be County Court bailiffs. Its all psychological pressure to "persuade" someone to pay.

[Dave962]

Oh no I kind of understand, thanks to you guys.

 

I mean it’s just so wrong how they use these dirty tactics to pursue their gains. As you say so many people have the fear of life put into them. It just amazes me how they are allowed to get away with this.

[AndyOrch]

Topic open

[Dave962]

Hi guys

 

latest update arrived today from DCB Legal - Letter of Claim.

 

I have the kind options of paying £160 or have a claim issued.

 

 

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

Time to do a search on CAG for a suitable snotty letter. Plenty of examples here.

 

The purpose of sending this letter is to let Total Car Parks know that you'll be trouble if this gets to court, without going into so much detail that you let them know what your major points are. This can persuade them that it's not worth pursuing you, but we can't promise.

 

HB

 

 

[Dave962]

Thanks HB. So is this the point where I reveal my name and make a case for myself? Up to now I think I’ve not admitted my part in the matter. I’ll take a look like you say and see what they say, thanks.