Debt Recovery Plus letter relating to ticket in April 2012???

bod1467

That doesn't change anything at all. They can ONLY go after the driver, and the keeper is under NO COMPUNCTION to identify the driver.

So as long as you (the keeper) have not in any way identified the driver, or implied that YOU were the driver, then you can simply continue to laugh in their faces.

bazingamo

bod1467 wrote: »

That doesn't change anything at all. They can ONLY go after the driver, and the keeper is under NO COMPUNCTION to identify the driver.

So as long as you (the keeper) have not in any way identified the driver, or implied that YOU were the driver, then you can simply continue to laugh in their faces.

Thank you...they do not know who the driver is. In fact, even I do not know who was driving as at that time 3 people were insured on the car/travelling and working at the uni and would have travelled there. It was 2012 and I genuinely can't remember!

Umkomaas

· Paragraph 9(2)b of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, states that we must inform the registered keeper that the driver of a vehicle is
required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that as we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator (i.e UKPC) of the name and address of the driver and pass the notice on to them. The Act also states that if, at the end of a period of 28 days (beginning with the day after the parking charge is sent) the parking charge has not been paid in full and the Operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver that they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper.

Not from April 2012 they don't. I'd fire that straight back to them, PoFA 2012 is not retrospective.

And you don't need a University degree to understand that, just a basic ability to read carefully, and then know what you're talking about.

Coupon-mad

Dear Uni of Brum,
Re UKPC fake PCN number xxxxxx

In response to your queries:

- Paragraph 9(2)b of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012...is all very interesting but does not apply to a pre-POFA ticket/invoice like this one. Laws generally do not apply retrospectively in the UK, of course. UKPC do not 'have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper'. It is astonishing that a University is quoting such misinformation in writing as if it were true, without simply checking with someone in the Law Faculty. To claim that a law applies when it does not, in order to influence a consumer's purchasing decision, is a very serious matter, not least evidence of 'unfair/banned terms' and therefore a breach of the CPUTR2008. If as I suspect, that misleading rubbish came from UKPC, that is a specific sanctionable breach of their BPA Code of Practice and the terms of licence under which the DVLA allow them access to motorists' data.

- You say 'Parking charges are levied on the basis of a contract with the driver'...no, they are alleged to be a 'breach of contract' and as such the charge can only represent a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' to the owner (not a profit for a third party agent like UKPC whose website in 2012/2013 admitted 'we make all our revenue from our PCNs'. A very interesting take on 'loss').

- You say 'It is settled law that a driver is deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of parking by the act of parking in the car park'...this is trite law ONLY if the signage is so prominent it cannot fail to have been seen, read and accepted before the act of parking, and was offered by a party which has the title or standing to pursue a charge for 'loss' in its own name in the courts (not UKPC as they have no such standing). In fact, even I do not know who was driving as at that time 3 people were insured on the car/travelling and working at the uni and would have travelled there. It was 2012 which is nearly 2 years ago after all and UKPC have not bothered to establish who the driver was, at that time.

- You add: 'Our parking charges are not punitive, unfair or unreasonable in amount and ... assert that our charges are a genuine pre-estimate of loss'... I disagree - and so did the UKPC website admission that all of their revenue comes from their fake PCNs which is how they can offer you an ostensibly 'free service' in the loosest sense of the words.

- The University of Birmingham has a contract with UKPC... I am sure you should have, otherwise UKPC would have been operating without authority on site. This does not however, change the fact that UKPC are a mere agent and a pre-POFA charge cannot be levelled at a registered keeper.

- As a member of the Approved Operator Scheme, UKPC...are merely paid-up members of a Trade Body (the BPA Ltd is not a regulator).

- UKPC have advised that as your parking charge notice was issued pre-Popla that you will be unable to appeal to them...POPLA does in fact make decisions about pre-POFA cases and has done on a number of occasions that are in the public domain. However, I don't think I 'appeal' to UKPC anyway. Being someone who knows that POFA2012 does not even apply so there is no 'keeper liability' capable of being established, I suspect I am 'not their type' of victim.

- As this is now in the hands of the debt collectors you should correspond with them directly...an interesting take on the matter, when in fact there is no credit agreement in default, no debt and no liability - and debt collectors cannot instigate court proceedings nor are they able to act as bailiffs. I won't be corresponding with a debt collector and to advise that 'I should' is at best, a naive suggestion presumably steered by UKPC.

Frankly, I do not wish to start a war of words with the University and I will deal directly with UKPC. I would however remind the University of Birmingham that you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agents. Their persistent pursuit of me, the registered keeper of a car where the driver has not been identified from an incident from early 2012, constitutes harassment. Their actions - and that of their agents - have in my view become a 'serious and persistent unwarranted threat' as found by Lord Justice Sedley in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009). UKPC are familiar with such consumer legislation, because they were sued by a Mr Davey a year ago for damages flowing from their trespass and harassment in a case of their pursuit of unjustified tickets. I will also charge UKPC for my time and wasted expenses in dealing with this matter from now on, since a registered keeper is not the party they can hold liable in spite of their attempts to blind you/me with the wholly irrelevant 'keeper liability' provision now in POFA2012.

yours,

bod1467

Boom!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Umkomaas

Another C-M haymaker.

I'd love to be in the room when that envelope gets opened!

bazingamo

You need a freaking honorary degree for that C-M! Will let you all know what/if I get a response!

Seriously you people on here are magic. I'm beyond worrying about this now, having educated myself with your advice and these forums. I hope I can give back, both to people at work, and online.

Ironically, the double yellows where I parked have become somewhat of a dumping ground within the car park. We have also faced an increase of people driving to work AND parking on the double yellows (which in my opinion should be proper spaces, as they don't stop access anywhere and we desperately need the parking space - not that i particularly want to park there again!)

esmerobbo

C-M says it all, but their response takes the biscuit, they claim POFA keeper liability at the beginning and then state its pre POFA at the end.

bazingamo

Well, the saga continue....just to keep you in the loop.

I received another DR+ threatogram, exactly the same as the one i recieved before Christmas, except this time they are going to go back to UKPC to recommend they issue court proceedings against me (instead of LPC Law, who it was in the 13/12/13 letter).

Only other difference is Daniel Tomkins appears to have handsigned this letter. It looks nothing like his pre printed signature, in fact its just a squiggle. I imagine they had these in a big pile and signed them quickly to appear to give that 'personal touch'.

I also emailed them approx 3 weeks ago declaring all debt is denied, and any more communication, email or otherwise would be considered harassment. Hmm...

A week ago I pretty much sent the above to uni. No reply as of yet...

Coupon-mad

No need to respond to DRP claptrap of course. I would love to hear what the Uni say though!