Playing the PPCs at their own game

den169

Got another letter a few days back from Debt recovery plus With Notice of intended litigation,Also telling me to look at there website where it shows recent ccj they have gained,Now when i copy and paste some of the ccj codes into google it brings up Zenith collections.I have no intention of paying these scumbags.Bring it on.

fil_cad

Sounds like your nearly at the end of the begging letter scam now :money:

RENEGADE_2

Yes I've had the same letters, they pride themselves on the successful CCJs they have "obtained" to use their phrase. Perhaps they should place these on a table against those where they have been less successful, and then produce a list where they haven't even tried. That last list would require 52 volumes; two entire books for each letter of the alphabet when presenting first letter of person's surname.

Don't be too impressed by their successes, whenever a collection agency or PPC has been awarded a case by the judge there have invariably been unusual circumstances including poor defence and bad judgement.

taffy056

The funny thing is, they never took anyone to the small claims in 2011 at all, they are not on the list of BPA AOS members who did. And there's no way they took I think 26 people to court, won then the motorists refused to pay within 28 days. Which must lead to its being bulls manure as we all know.

peter_the_piper

They don't actually say that these ccj are for parking. They do infer in the text above that this is so but as they are a general debt company its more likely they are utility derived.

taffy056

peter_the_piper wrote: »

They don't actually say that these ccj are for parking. They do infer in the text above that this is so but as they are a general debt company its more likely they are utility derived.

But did the FOI take into account other activities when they gave their info over? How did they differentiate between a parking claim to a utilities claim ? Did the FOI request say BPA AOS members who took action only in relation to parking ? Because by the look of things when you view it these debt collectors didn't do court for any reason

esmerobbo

If "they" obtained CCJ's they must own the debt! To own the debt it must be theirs or they purchased it. You cant purchase a debt that does not exist.

Most of their claimed CCJ's are also claimed by UKPC who we all know have never done court! Well they have as defendants!

They are probably as P-T-P says utility or credit agreement debts! However to the unknowing they could scare a few into coughing up!

thetriggerhappypwner

RENEGADE wrote: »

Yes I've had the same letters, they pride themselves on the successful CCJs they have "obtained" to use their phrase. Perhaps they should place these on a table against those where they have been less successful, and then produce a list where they haven't even tried. That last list would require 52 volumes; two entire books for each letter of the alphabet when presenting first letter of person's surname.

Don't be too impressed by their successes, whenever a collection agency or PPC has been awarded a case by the judge there have invariably been unusual circumstances including poor defence and bad judgement.

That is priceless! I am dying in laughter!

103Rich

bargepole wrote: »

Another letter from Zenith this morning, with a final final last chance to pay at a reduced rate, before they pass it their "legal department" - or should that be illegal department?

Anyway, this was my reply:

FAO James Wilkins, Litigation Manager

Dear Mr Wilkins,

I have today received another letter from you, headed "Notice of Intention to Commence Legal Proceedings", with yet another 7 days to make a reduced payment of £80.

There is so much wrong with this letter, I scarcely know where to begin.

Firstly, you say that the matter "will be passed to our legal department with the recommendation that legal proceedings are commenced". Under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, any claim for damages under breach of contract can only be undertaken by the principal or his qualified legal representative. In this case, you are an agent for UKPC who themselves are acting as an agent for the principal, who would be the landowner of Wycombe Retail Park. Any contractual damages (which are denied) can only be recovered by the principal.

Secondly, you assert that the costs will include "£30 court fee to issue CCJ". This conveniently overlooks the necessity to issue a claim, and to win your case in a County Court. Based on your apparent lack of knowledge of how the civil courts operate, this would appear about as likely as discovering Elvis serving in the Ashton-under-Lyne chip shop.

However, should you wish to try your luck in court, I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate, once again, how completely unlawful and irrecoverable Private Parking Company charges actually are. Your legal representatives may, in such a case, be well advised to pack a toothbrush.

I would also point out that, in accordance with the contractual terms stated in my letter to UKPC dated 11 June, a further administration fee of £90 has been incurred for dealing with this latest letter, for which I have sent UKPC an invoice, bringing their total indebtedness to £630.00. This amount will be counterclaimed in the event of any court claim against me.

Yours sincerely,

What a brilliant thread. My favourite so far is Elvis working down the chip shop :rotfl: wasn't there a song about that? Keep it up and keep the updates coming please.

HardWorker2010_2

The_Seeker wrote: »

Down with Zenith!!

That may not be possible as they are already bottom feeding vermin. Could they go any lower?....... They could recruit Perky I suppose. LOL

Oink Oink!