debt Recovery Plus

rambot

Within the correspondence it states that you were not the driver at the time of the contravention.

As such, because we are members of the British Parking Association (BPA) we are required to invite you to declare that you either were the driver of the vehicle at the time the charge was issued or to disclose the identity of the driver at that time.

We feel obligated to mention that, under the Pre-Action Protocol of the Civil Procedural Rules, court action must only be viewed as a last resort. We are making all reasonable attempts to avoid this outcome.

However, it is worth noting that, if this matter does proceed to court, we will request that a Norwich Pharmacal Order [Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974]] be issued by the Court so that the correct driver details would have to be provided.

Many forums /sites advise people to ignore parking charges; with some advising people to send standard letters to deny liability for the charge notice.

It is not advisable to believe what you read on the forums as we do take people to court.

This was proven in Oldham County Court in November 2008 where an operator won a case where the keeper stated that they were not the driver and could not remember who was driving. The judge decided that on the balance of probability he was the driver and ruled against him.

Please visit oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/15246/parking-penalty-just-judge-rules for a summary of the case.

We have also attached copies of photographs taken at the time of the contravention.

Within the correspondence harassment has also been referred to. As such, we feel obliged to point out that under S1(3)(c) of The Harassment Act 1997, a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not deemed so if the person who pursued it shows that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
We feel that under the particular circumstances our course of action has been entirely reasonable. We have legitimately pursued recompense for a breach of the terms and conditions attached to our client’s site.

Furthermore, upon your own denial, we are now reasonably asking for the details of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question.

In order to resolve this matter as soon as possible we invite you to either pay the outstanding charge via the methods outlined below or to disclose the identity of the driver.

As a gesture of goodwill, we will place the account of £150.00 on hold for 14 days from the date of this correspondence to allow time for payment to be made or for our company to be provided with the driver details.

However, if we are not furnished with one of the above within 14 days, the matter will be passed on to our legal team for their consideration.

Payment Methods

Cheques / Postal Orders: Should be posted to the address below, made payable to Debt Recovery Plus. Please write your reference number on the back.
Telephone Payment: RING 0844 561 0965
Online Payment: debtrecoverplus.co.uk
Bank Transfer: Quote your reference number to – Debt Recovery Plus,
Royal Bank of Scotland, Sort code 16-00-01, Account number 20891316.

Coupon-mad

So this is a new email from DRP then (I saw it on the top sticky thread).

Nothing to worry about, 'same old same old' that they trot out in their letters. You can search for posts on here about Norwich Pharmacal Orders; they have been discussed before.

You have NO duty to tell them who was driving. Shame they have your email addy though, were you tricked into thinking you could actually appeal this scam I presume?

esmerobbo

"As such, because we are members of the British Parking Association (BPA) we are required to invite you to declare that you either were the driver of the vehicle at the time the charge was issued or to disclose the identity of the driver at that time".

OK, thank you invitation declined! Next!

Strange how DRP have supposed PPC, CCJ's on their website they have obtained yet still use the Thomas case a a lever?

robredz

Lots of "invitations to" and hints at gaining an (expensive for them) Norwich Pharmacal Order

"Within the correspondence harassment has also been referred to. As such, we feel obliged to point out that under S1(3)(c) of The Harassment Act 1997, a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not deemed so if the person who pursued it shows that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
We feel that under the particular circumstances our course of action has been entirely reasonable. We have legitimately pursued recompense for a breach of the terms and conditions attached to our client’s site"

Reasonable they are hilarious, they are trying to justify themselves but are digging a deeper hole, as any continued demands for an unenforceable invoice will automatically become harrassment after about the third call when asked to cease and desist on denial of the debt imho

peter_the_piper

Pity Mr Thomas can't charge them for every time the case is used, he'd have made a fortune.

Inflatable_Armadillo

As a gesture of goodwill, we will place the account of £150.00 on hold for 14 days from the date of this correspondence to allow time for payment to be made or for our company to be provided with the driver details.

How nice of them, they are such reasonable people! So, this money I don't or the person who was driving doesn't actual owe to you at all, you are willing, as a pure gesture of goodwill of course, to only attempt to charge the the person who was driving the car, who doesn't even know you are demanding the money potentially at this stage, the smaller £150 charge... when I tell you who they are! In actual fact, as a gesture of goodwill of course (to the driver... not you!), I think I will decline your kind invitation to drop the driver in it and in that way you get nothing from me or the opportunity to potentially harass them for money either!

They don't half write some rubbish!

HO87

One really would think that after this length of time that DR+ would change their tune. As has been said, invite away but it is just an invitation and can be declined without prejudice.

I for one would be extremely interested in observing quite how DR+ propose to obtain a NPO given that as they are merely acting as the putative creditor's agent, as opposed to assignee or debt-owner, they have no demonstrable interest in the alleged debt.

Indeed, every single one of their other threats or offers fall into the same pile of carp and may safely be ignored as being the equivalent of a 30-second speech from Neil Kinnock or a single blast from a hot-air hand-drier.

However, on a more pleasant note, I am pleased to see that beyond the vague reference to "pre-action protocols" specific mention of CPR 31 has now disappeared. Perhaps someone amongst the foremost DCA's in this field have actually got around to reading what the Civil Procedure Rules say as opposed to pontificating about what they would like them to say?

Besides, to my knowledge DR+ have never gone for an NPO and to date the only organisation to have had a "pop" is Excel - 1 x Alphabet and the twice-run case at Melton Mowbray which concluded on each occasion in the application being struck out.

robredz

Sadly they won'tI change their tune, and the government will only encourage their muppetry, have had a reply from my MP regarding the Freedom Bill, and the Minister appears to be completely taken in by the BPA, which he regards as "Reputable", I will scan and post it up later