CP Plus, POPLA requested, now DR+

Coupon-mad

If it were me I would go for this (and not send anything to DRP or CP Plus right now):



I am in receipt of a letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd in relation to an alleged debt appertaining to an unpaid parking charge from CP Plus.
The original Notice to Keeper appeared to have come from CP Plus and in good faith I sent an immediate appeal to the address given. My appeal was ignored and I now realise that the letter hid the real sender which was Parking Collection Services, a trading name of Debt Recovery Plus Ltd. Because they failed to show a clear & transparent company heading on the NTK, it meant I was misled as I thought I was communicating with CP Plus and believed that they would acknowledge my appeal and then provide me with a POPLA code.

This Notice certainly failed to identify the creditor, let alone the sender, and it claims to establish 'keeper liability' but fails to state the statutory wording needed under paragraph 8 of Schedule 4. And apparently they think these words: 'If within 28 days of the issue of this NTK you fail to provide us with details of the driver at the time of the incident then under the terms of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 you are liable for the parking charge...' is POFA2012 compliant. As a lay person with no experience of private parking tickets or the POFA2012, it took me just 15 minutes of research to find the wording they should have used. This is shoddy at best and evidence of sharp practice and breach of EU and UK Law on Unfair Contract Terms, to misstate the legal position for the clear intention to mislead me, as a consumer, into making a different decision about this invoice. Both companies have shown no regard for the legitimate interests and rights of the consumer.

I understand that this debt firm have no access to a POPLA code themselves, do not follow the strict requirements of the BPA CoP, do not use POFA compliant paperwork and are no longer members of the CSA - so why are they issuing Notices for an AOS member and handling appeals from keepers?

I am making a formal complaint about CP Plus as they have failed to acknowledge my appeal within 14 days as per the BPA's Code of Practice. And rather than stop work on the case while they considered my appeal, both firms were complicit in sending out another recovery letter which is wholly unfair and misleading. And a formal complaint is also lodged about both firms because they allege 'keeper liability' under POFA2012 when it does not apply due to their own wording failures. I require a formal investigation of the whole set-up because surely this many CoP breaches means that sanctions should apply to both firms - and if CP Plus are routinely not furnishing keepers with a proper NTK and denying them the right to POPLA by farming cases out to DRP early, then this must be stopped. Clearly this is not an example of an AOS member helping you to 'drive up standards' in this 'industry'. I would request that the BPA instruct their member to cancel this charge or issue a rejection letter and POPLA code, which are the only two responses open to them when an appeal from a keeper has been lodged in good time.

A copy of my appeal and all letters are attached so you may investigate this series of Code of Practice breaches by these firms. I look forward to hearing from you.

Redx

as above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +1

CPP are being devious in farming out the work and letters etc to DR+ under its many disguises and hiding behind a smoke screen and this is confusing to the vehicle owners and is designed to get around the direct approach and so called "contract" between the PPC and the driver or keeper

its all smoke and mirrors and is designed in such a way as to deceive, its bordering on malpractice and does not help the consumer in any way because it is not designed to do so, this means it needs exposing as a sham, same as the proserve sc*m which is also a sham and designed in such a way as to "get around" the dvla and bpa CoP due to the deviousness of those involved

I am sure that there are other parking companies looking for ways to deceive in a similar fashion, but in this case CPP are doing it by issuing tickets etc and then passing the buck to DR+ and its various names and hiding the real truth and the actual client details

therefore its time people complained to the BPA etc and put a stop to it

docdrive

fantastic, thank you all so much for your time and help with this! will send an email to BPA now, and let you know of their response!