Debt Recovery Plus and LandHOLDERS.

Chrisk

I've seen a few references to DR+ and a line in their letters stating that if not paid they will pass the matter to the LandHOLDERS solicitor. In referencing this letter many posters have used the term LandOWNER thinking that the actual land owners will take them to court as PPCs may well not have the right to. This I believe is incorrect. During a phone conversation with DR+ they stated that the PPC is the LandHOLDER due to the contract they have with the LandOWNER. Taken as such the letter simply means that the PPC will continue trying to extract payment not the rightful Landowner.
I think it is well worth confirming whether or not the wording in the letter is LandOWNER or HOLDER as this distinction is quite a significant one.

Stroma

Most ppcs do not have any such rights in a car park, there is no such contract that would effectively give them title to the land, a retailer would be insane to hand over land to a parking company. There are a few companies that own the land, ncp probably being the largest.

The only ones who can in reality take people to court are the ones who have a loss, the only who could have that alleged loss are the owners. Debt recovery plus and their ilk are lying barrel scraping scumbags who will say anything to get money. Have you considered that they are not telling the truth?

Chrisk

I am sure they are not telling the truth, nor have they done at any point.
I posted the above to help clarify to other posters that the letter does not refer to the actual landowner but just back to the original PPC to send more baseless letters

Chrisk

btw is it worth sending DR+ a letter rejecting the PPC's claims and threaten complaint of harassment at this point or just ignore?

Stroma

It's best not to contact them at all, or zenith collections which will be next, same company different letterhead

HO87

DR+ are simply using the collective term, as defined in the DfT's guidance document to s.56 and Sch. 4 POFA, which - briefly - specifies landowners and their "properly authorised" agents [PPC's] as landholders.

Whether they are using it with the intention of giving their drivel letters an air of credence they might not otherwise deserve or are actually stating something as a fact remains to be seen.

Given the known probity and veracity of debt collectors I, personally, would not be inclined towards the latter suggestion.

nigelbb

This definition of "landholder" to mean

either a private landowner or an agent (or agents) properly authorised by the landowner to manage and enforce parking on the land in question.

is something dreamed up by the DfT. The dictionary definition from the OED is

Definition of landholder
noun
a person who owns land, especially one who either makes their living from it or rents it out to others.

In legal parlance a landholder is either the landowner or a person with considerable rights over the land e.g. a tenant or leaseholder. It is not someone who merely manages the land. It is especially not someone who as in many cases manages parking on behalf of an agent who manages the land on behalf of the landowner or landholder.

HO87

nigelbb wrote: »

This definition of "landholder" to mean

is something dreamed up by the DfT. The dictionary definition from the OED is

In legal parlance a landholder is either the landowner or a person with considerable rights over the land e.g. a tenant or leaseholder. It is not someone who merely manages the land. It is especially not someone who as in many cases manages parking on behalf of an agent who manages the land on behalf of the landowner or landholder.

Quite. However, the DfT's guidance makes it clear that the definition is intended for use solely in connection with their guidance in relation to s.56 and Sch. 4. In that sense they have sought to come up with a shorthand, if you will, to convey the points they make without the trouble of having to attach a far longer phrase. It is unfortunate that they have used a term that has far wider and greater importance as a legal definition beyond the very narrow legalistic usage intended here. There is a distinct difference between a "legal" and "legalistic" definition.

By any definition (there are many) a "landholder" has proprietary rights i.e. some degree of ownership in order to collect rent or other dues from the land. The one I like, because it conveys the point is as follows:

"Landholder" means any person who owns an estate or part thereof and includes every person entitled to collect the rents of the whole or any portion of the estate by virtue of any transfer from the owner or his predecessor in title or any order of any competent Court or any provision of law.

Of much more significance, I would posit, is the fact that neither s. 56 nor Sch. 4 makes any reference whatsoever to "landholders" and deals with the entire range of scenarios by referring simply to "the creditor". Hence my trailing my coat-tails and suggesting that perhaps, just perhaps, DR+ were using the term in an effort to "puff" their letter. Of course, using the correct and relevant legal term "the creditor" in this letter would have lent it no greater impact nor demonstrate any superior knowledge of the law than any of their other letters.

Guys_Dad

HO87 wrote: »

Quite. However, the DfT's guidance makes it clear that the definition is intended for use solely in connection with their guidance in relation to s.56 and Sch. 4..

I have made some similar comments - although not so legalistic - as you in the past.

I work from the following logic

1. If no one except the landowner could take court action, then there would be no wins for any PPC except those that own their land. Unfortunately, there is.

2. It is possible to write a contract that confers landholder rights on a PPC without giving away any landowner rights.

3. The DfT seem to be on the side of there being a properly regulated private parking industry and have not imposed any caps that we would consider reasonable on parking "contraveners".

So I do not subscribe to the view that non-landowning landholders will always lose, much as I would like it to be so. We have to play them at their own games and pick them up on their processes and those contracts that do not meet the correct definitions.

HO87

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I have made some similar comments - although not so legalistic - as you in the past.

I work from the following logic

1. If no one except the landowner could take court action, then there would be no wins for any PPC except those that own their land. Unfortunately, there is.

2. It is possible to write a contract that confers landholder rights on a PPC without giving away any landowner rights.

3. The DfT seem to be on the side of there being a properly regulated private parking industry and have not imposed any caps that we would consider reasonable on parking "contraveners".

So I do not subscribe to the view that non-landowning landholders will always lose, much as I would like it to be so. We have to play them at their own games and pick them up on their processes and those contracts that do not meet the correct definitions.

I don't disagree with you - to any great extent; we're pretty much on the same page. However, in order to become a landholder there has to be delegation/derogation of some landowner rights of one type or another. That is an integral part of the equation.

However, one wonders whether the DfT drafted their guidance with the earlier VCS judgments in mind? Whether they did or they didn't they nevertheless made explicit use of the term "landholder" as opposed to any of the others they could have gone for, including the term that appears in the legislation - "creditor". I'm of the view that this was not done without reason.

As you quite rightly point out such arguments will not always win but it is an argument that should not be forgotten. There are going to be many examples, I suspect, especially involving larger retail parks where the landowner is not the operator of the park and nor are they a party to a contract with a PPC. In these circumstances their contract with the intermediary company (usually a retail park operator) might be examined to see if that confers sufficient rights on the park operator to be able to delegate things downward to a PPC.

As far as the DfT's stance in this whole sorry saga is concerned, they have simply taken the BPA shilling. Part of what we are doing, surely, is to expose the sizeable proportion of the private parking world for the sham it really is? Exacting a tax (that is what PCN's are really about) has b00gger all to do with management.