Parking Ticket - Received letter from DC - advice appreciated

Coupon-mad

walter_89 wrote: »

Has anyone known Rossendales representatives turn up in this manner before? I assume just to frighten people?

Not when acting as debt collectors, no. There is a separate Rossendales bailiff 'arm' and in previous years we have (very rarely) seen other bailiff/debt collector firms - not Rossendales - deliver a letter that looked like there had been a 'personal visit' but that would be overstepping the mark. There is no court order, they are NOT empowered to do anything, you could give them 3 seconds to get off your land before you call the Police and you could film them on your phone to prove unwarranted harassment (a crime and a tort that you could sue the PPC and Rossendales for damages over in the end, under these circumstances which are not the same as a bailiff situation).

Maybe the two men in a van were looking for drives to tarmac or trees to chop down!

walter_89 wrote: »

One thing I have picked up on is if I do get the LBA on my doorstep, one thing that is important is how your conduct throughout the process will look to the judge at court (if it eventually gets there). Will they look disapprovingly on just complete ignorance to all correspondence from the outset, or do they just assess conduct after the LBA has been served?

So I suppose my question is, is it worth me just being proactive and writing a 'cease and desist' letter to Rossendales (as CM suggested) to tell them not to contact me as I am disputing the charge - and then writing an appeal to VCS/Excel stating that if they refuse my appeal, then I would like POPLA code, quoting the POPLA T&C's stating that it is not too late as there are no actual time limits, and this would mitigate their potential losses and is a favourable ADR, rather than them eventually pursuing court action and wasting time and more money - or is this pre-empting a storm that in practice is unlikely to come?

It's such a hard call to make. We don't know which is best as we don't know in your case whether VCS would have been considering your case for one of their rare court claims anyway, or whether you are one of hundreds of names on a Rossendales list where the letters will fizzle out. The phone calls should be answered and the driver NOT identified. Simply say the debt is denied because you have no contract with a firm called 'Excel' and that you will report Rossendales to the CSA for harassment and breach of the Code of Practice and OFT debt collection guidelines if they contact you again now they are aware the 'debt' is expressly denied and disputed.

What we have noticed is that Rossendales letters state that their client is 'Excel', so it's perfectly legitimate to deny any debt to 'Excel' (not the same firm as VCS, but if pressed you also deny any debt to VCS too). I think IMHO a Judge might wonder why a person ignored this until the LBA, but equally we have discussed how to explain this in any defence if you would rather not respond yet. Could just be covered - if a court case ensues - with a simple statement in the intro to a robust defence (which we could help you with):

"The Claimant, in the Particulars of Claim, suggests that the Defendant should have contacted the Claimant earlier, to attempt to resolve the matter. On receipt of alarming letters from the Claimant, the Defendant, like thousands of other unrepresented members of the public at that time, chose not to respond to an invoice that had been shown in BBC consumer programmes to be a scam. Clearly the sum demanded was outrageous and not a genuine pre-estimate of any loss and in any case, did not emanate from the landowner. So, following the advice of the solicitor on Watchdog the Defendant ignored the letters from this agent. In addition, when the Defendant later received unsolicited letters from 'Rossendales Collect' about a client called 'Excel' there was no indication that this could be even tenuously related to an invoice from a firm called VCS - clearly it was bogus and the choice of the Defendant to exercise their right to ignore intimidating multi-coloured junk mail from the outset has no relevance in the case.''

{or similar}!

walter_89

I think I will not respond just yet. You have just justified to me my ignorance to their correspondence and defended the position, so I think I will just see what happens.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's such a hard call to make. We don't know which is best as we don't know in your case whether VCS would have been considering your case for one of their rare court claims anyway, or whether you are one of hundreds of names on a Rossendales list where the letters will fizzle out. The phone calls should be answered and the driver NOT identified. Simply say the debt is denied because you have no contract with a firm called 'Excel' and that you will report Rossendales to the CSA for harassment and breach of the Code of Practice and OFT debt collection guidelines if they contact you again now they are aware the 'debt' is expressly denied and disputed.

In relation to this passage, when you say do not identify the driver, how should I do this. . .if that makes sense . I'm asking this question not just with respect to Rossendales, but with respect to the process as a whole.

What I mean is am i within my rights to refuse to tell them who was driving, by saying for example, "no, i will not tell you who the driver was", so to be openly uncooperative and take a firm tone, or should I just be evasive, so by saying something along the lines of "I cannot confirm who was driving at the time of the alleged infringement".

I fear being directly asked the question, "who was driving", or "were you the driver" and being unable to answer quickly and confidently.

Redx

for england and wales only , POFA 2012 answers that aspect and is covered via the CM newbies sticky thread, or links therein

nigelbb

You shouldn't be engaging with these debt collectors or even considering telling them or anyone else who the driver was. Simply deny the debt & tell them to FO.

Coupon-mad

'...am i within my rights to refuse to tell them who was driving, by saying for example, "no, i will not tell you who the driver was", so to be openly uncooperative and take a firm tone, or should I just be evasive, so by saying something along the lines of "I cannot confirm who was driving at the time of the alleged infringement".'




Either would be fine. You are perfectly within your rights because POFA2012 stopped short of forcing a keeper to name the driver (and believe me, when the Bill was going through Parliament the BPA pushed for it!). We 'forum regulars' followed the readings of the Bill and the submissions made by various agencies at the time. Parliament specifically refused to hand PPCs the right to force a person to say who was driving as that's a power for the real UK authorities only, not for 'Ex-clampersRUs' firms like those run by 'Captain Clampit' Simon Renshaw-Smith:

http://neilherron.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/death-knell-sounds-for-private-land.html

...he owns Excel and VCS. He is rich now and his daughters mix with Royals as the ride & attend events like the Horse of the Year show (you can Google the word 'horse' or 'pony' and his surname and you will get many results). Doesn't mean he's someone you should fear though - look where he came from and how he has amassed his money.

walter_89

Good afternoon all,

Although this may be considered the post of a necromancer by many, I was just passing through and just thought that I would follow up on this considering all the help that I received (not that anyone cares specifically, but someone may find the info useful).

While it is not the best advice available (I know that now), I am living proof that the good old ignore route is still a viable option with respect to these ridiculous charge notices, for those that are for some reason unable to go down the POPLA route (as I was, due to timing and other factors). My threatening letters DEMANDING IMMEDIATE PAYMENT from the DC died down, and after 6 months of hearing nothing, I think it is safe to say they have desisted, and ceased chasing me for the debt.

So if you miss the POPLA option, do not despair.

Good look everyone with your appeals, and thanks again to everyone who contributed and helped me.

Redx

its only finished when the fat lady sings, which is after 6 years in england and wales (5 in scotland)

Umkomaas

walter_89 wrote: »

Good afternoon all,

Although this may be considered the post of a necromancer by many, I was just passing through and just thought that I would follow up on this considering all the help that I received (not that anyone cares specifically, but someone may find the info useful).

While it is not the best advice available (I know that now), I am living proof that the good old ignore route is still a viable option with respect to these ridiculous charge notices, for those that are for some reason unable to go down the POPLA route (as I was, due to timing and other factors). My threatening letters DEMANDING IMMEDIATE PAYMENT from the DC died down, and after 6 months of hearing nothing, I think it is safe to say they have desisted, and ceased chasing me for the debt.

So if you miss the POPLA option, do not despair.

Good look everyone with your appeals, and thanks again to everyone who contributed and helped me.

See here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5002732

and here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5001672

and here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=91274

and here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=91275

before complacency totally sets in