Excel, Roxbourghe and Graham White

Blueblade

Bessy_the_Dog wrote: »

Anyway, I was going through their previous letters and found something interesting, the first demand from Excel had a return address on the envelope to excel at an Address in Sheffield, one of the following demands was a similar letter from excel but the return address was to Vehicle Control Services at a different PO box in Sheffield, why would excel use another company`s return envelope to correspond with me? also in the unlikely event that this went to court would it be worth mentioning this in any defence I may have to put forward?

Yep, I have letters from VCS with Excels return address on the envelope, it seems to be the same company, with the same staff (and management), operating under 2 different names.

Sirdan

Bessy_the_Dog wrote: »

I`m not so sure about that, the bit in bold is the interesting point, have they got a legitimate interest? PCN`s are not enforcable and by definition are not legitimate, the only party as I can see it that has a legitimate interest is the land owner for losses incurred.

Excel are contracted by the landowner and are in effect acting as their agents, as such they could be considered to have a legitimate interest.
The tickets are not "unenforceable " per se , each case remains individual because the County Court decisions set no precedents, as such the PPC industry can argue a legitimate interest as they have won some of these cases, approx 50 % last year as I recall.

Also even if the County Courts follow the HMRC vs VCS ruling which seems to preclude any PPC ever taking any action at court, that doesn't mean that invoicing on behalf of the landowner for pre-estimated losses / damages is not a legitimate interest. (IMO)

If it was as easy as having all these invoices ruled out by virtue of unlawful data processing I'm sure it would have happened by now !

It would follow by your arguement that debt collection agencies could not ever be given a debtors details by the original creditor as the debt is not owed directly to them ...clearly this is also not the case..

Having said that what seems clear from HMRC vs VCS, as I understand it, is that no one owes any PPC any money ever .
So it would seem the only way forward should be for PPCs to charge the landowner for their contracted services (they rarely do now) and the money from the scam tickets ..oops, I mean "genuine invoices for landowner losses/damages" should be passed by the PPC to the landowner.