JAS Parking (Staples)

Coupon-mad

Yes I would do exactly that - it's very clear that you know what you are talking about in your reply to this debt collector. And then email the BPA to point out the same, i.e. that this PPC is using an agent to send a NTK letter six months after an event and yet that letter says the registered keeper 'will be liable' (they use the words 'are liable' which is completely untrue and borderline fraud/obtaining money by deception/lying about facts to gain pecuniary advantage). This, coupled with the fact that the PPC never replied to the original appeal you made as keeper after the Notice to Driver was brought to your attention, back in March, is a major and significant failure in communications. Ask the BPA to investigate and impose sanctions because no registered keeper can be harassed and misled like this, six months later.

BPA email addy for Steve Clark is in the Newbies thread post #6.

secretmachines

thanks all, I have emailed my appeal template to PCD... I await a response!

I'll also draft emails to BPA and DVLA regarding the nature of the letter and lack of communication.

Would it be of any interest for me to upload a copy of the letter (with personal details obscured)?

Stroma

You could post the text up to the dvla & bpa if you wish, just copy your NtK to them that you received highlighting the date of parking, and the date of the letter to you

secretmachines

ahhh, the passing of the buck starts here! (from PDC)

"Thank you for your email,

Unfortunately we do not deal with parking charge notice appeals or queries here, please send all queries and appeals directly to JAS Parking Solutions.

If this outstanding debt of £114 is not paid the matter will get passed over to debt recovery were you will incur even more charges."

Stroma

That's a joke, I would be writing back to them with a printout of the fact that they are the same company, implying they are completely seperate when they share a director is completely misleading, and possibly unlawful ?? I would be making complaints to the dvla and bpa over this sham

bod1467

And Trading Standards ... I believe someone has already been brought to book about this same scam quite recently.

secretmachines

well that was a very satisfying email to send!

copied both JAS and PDC, and re-sent the appeal letter.

secretmachines

all of a sudden they're very keen to communicate... been sent a long letter explaining:

- why the PCN was issued
- they have pictures
- the sum has been calculated after consultation with various bodies DVLA, BPA, etc.
- they quote Parking Eye Ltd v Somerfield Stores [2011], Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v Dorrington
[2012], Napier Parking Ltd v Mr Darren Yau [2012] and Parking Eye Ltd v Kevin Shelley [2013]
- they're not legally obliged to do XYZ
- trying to coax the driver's name out of you
- "if the case were to go to court..."

and then finally POPLA documentation (I guess it's the verification code which is the unique part).

EDIT - is this case one of the operator seeking damages, not a contractual charge? (the car park is not ticketed)

ampersand

..which, of course, is valid?:-)))
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/popla-code-checker.html
#
'- the sum has been calculated after consultation with various bodies DVLA, BPA, etc.' - really?
Did they have a lunch somewhere, collectively brainstorming the calcs for secretmachines' heinous parking event?
I'm sure dvla and bpa and the must-be-identified etcetera's of this meeting will hold dated records for this meeting, its agenda, its conclusions.

secretmachines

ampersand wrote: »

..which, of course, is valid?:-)))
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/popla-code-checker.html
#
'- the sum has been calculated after consultation with various bodies DVLA, BPA, etc.' - really?
Did they have a lunch somewhere, collectively brainstorming the calcs for secretmachines' heinous parking event?
I'm sure dvla and bpa and the must-be-identified etcetera's of this meeting will hold dated records for this meeting, its agenda, its conclusions.

Fortunately it is valid!