CPMS NTK out of date?

mike213

Sent the Email to steve clark, resending the appeal to keeper, and sending a letter to the debt collectors. Geez these guys just dont give up. And the cheeky !!!!!!s have put the charge up to 150..

Stroma

Did you get proof of postage for the letter ? If so provide a copy to them saying it was sent

mike213

Stroma wrote: »

Did you get proof of postage for the letter ? If so provide a copy to them saying it was sent

No I sent it regular first class, I will send the letter tomorrow with proof of postage (I read it is best to avoid sending recorded).

Are they allowed to now be asking for £149 when the maximum on the PCN was 100? (it is debt recovery plus btw)

Coupon-mad

DRP will ask for that but you won't be paying.

mike213

Got a letter from DRP today after I sent a letter to them (one of the templates from the relevant thread) basically saying the charge is disputed etc etc

Letter today says

"as per BPA cod of practice point 22.7 driver is allowed 28 days from date of PCN to challenge the PCN, this time expired and POPLA is no longer available"

My understanding that POPLA was available after the NTK was served, (though CPMS "lost my original letter")

Demanding the full payment by 10th of feb, I can scan the letter if that helps

bazster

Why does anyone waste their time with this fool? There is no such company as CPMS Manchester, and every time he sends out paperwork without declaring who he actually is (limited company, partnership or sole trader with real name) he is committing a criminal offence. Why engage at all with such an obvious chancer? His "notices" are worth about as much as emails from Nigeria.

The website may be dead but the domain registration is live - but possibly not for much longer because (surprise surprise) he has registered as a sole trader without giving his name. A complaint has been submitted to and acknowledged by Nominet. My guess is that he will allow the registration to die rather than give his real name.

I would suggest that the DVLA also commits an offence (under the DPA) every time it hands out keeper details to someone who uses them illegally by issuing "invoices" which don't comply with company law.

Redx

ignore DRP , simple as that, ignore what they say, ignore, ignore

Coupon-mad

mike213 wrote: »

Sent the Email to steve clark,

So how is Steve's Investigation going?

Follow it up if not sorted yet and tell him about the latest drivel the debt collection agents are sending which pretends that only the driver had a chance to appeal. Attach a copy of it and say this is sharp practice by both companies who clearly don't want to handle any appeals from keepers yet want to harass them. Do not take ANY liability for not sending your appeal by recorded delivery - not even worth mentioning that, just state when the appeal was sent and that as a reasonable person you expect to be treated with enough respect by an AOS member to send you a rejection letter and POPLA code, as you were not late in appealing as keeper. Attach a copy of your original appeal to 'help the member locate the letter in question and to consider it properly at long last'. Obviously nothing about who was driving...

mike213

bazster wrote: »

Why does anyone waste their time with this fool? There is no such company as CPMS Manchester, and every time he sends out paperwork without declaring who he actually is (limited company, partnership or sole trader with real name) he is committing a criminal offence. Why engage at all with such an obvious chancer? His "notices" are worth about as much as emails from Nigeria.

The website may be dead but the domain registration is live - but possibly not for much longer because (surprise surprise) he has registered as a sole trader without giving his name. A complaint has been submitted to and acknowledged by Nominet. My guess is that he will allow the registration to die rather than give his real name.

I would suggest that the DVLA also commits an offence (under the DPA) every time it hands out keeper details to someone who uses them illegally by issuing "invoices" which don't comply with company law.

Well so far I have not received a response from them/him to either of my appeal letters, just a response from debtrecoveryplus

Redx wrote: »

ignore DRP , simple as that, ignore what they say, ignore, ignore

I want to, i really do, each time a letter comes my dad gets half way to dialing and paying the damn fine. Was reading on a thread on pepipoo they were calling one guy. Not sure how they got his number but yeah.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So how is Steve's Investigation going?

Follow it up if not sorted yet and tell him about the latest drivel the debt collection agents are sending which pretends that only the driver had a chance to appeal. Attach a copy of it and say this is sharp practice by both companies who clearly don't want to handle any appeals from keepers yet want to harass them. Do not take ANY liability for not sending your appeal by recorded delivery - not even worth mentioning that, just state when the appeal was sent and that as a reasonable person you expect to be treated with enough respect by an AOS member to send you a rejection letter and POPLA code, as you were not late in appealing as keeper. Attach a copy of your original appeal to 'help the member locate the letter in question and to consider it properly at long last'. Obviously nothing about who was driving...

I emailed Steve today said he will reply to me tomorrow as he was in London for something or another, I sent him another email just now with all the letters scanned (I do not have the one saved that I sent to DRP) but gave a summary.

CPMS still not replied, I can send a link of the DRP letter if anyone wants to see it

bazster

Understand the problem re your father. I guess you could write to DRP (I feel dirty even suggesting it!) pointing out that their "client" commits a criminal offence by issuing invoices without declaring his true identity as a limited company, partnership or sole trader, that they are party to that offence by failing to properly identify their "client", and that the matter is being referred to Trading Standards.