Trevor Whitehouse Email to his clients

Umkomaas

waamo wrote: »

I always thought he was a figment of Trevs imagination.

As are most things!

Didn't Trev tell Pranky that Martin Cutts of the Plain Language Commission has been advising him on his written form?

Ah, yes, here it is:

The Prankster would like to print Trevor Whitehouse's reply in full.

May I reassure both the public and our clients that we do care about our persona and that we are fully aware of the discontent which our so called 'Rejection Letter' is causing. We are and have been working closely with the BPA to improve the diction following a recent complaint.

Before we attached any tickets, sold any contracts or erected any signs, we employed the services of Martin Cutts from the Speaking Plain English PLC to oversee our literature. He personally supervised and sanctioned all of our stationary which also included the invoices that we send to the motorists. Unfortunately this was prior to the introduction of Popla which as we know was an afterthought.

Ironically the letter in question is not our 'rejection letter' but more of a 'think twice' letter. There is no mention in the code of practise which deters us from sending out such a letter and if it is as we say a 'think twice' letter then it is beyond retribution from the BPA. We actually added the popla reference number in case we were in breach of the code. Our rejection letters are much shorter and to the point. They provide details of how to appeal/ where and we always incorporate an appeal form which we have had pre-printed.

We spend on average £1,000 per month to the BPA for POPLA which is roughly a case a day. Mel my former PA fights every case and 14 days after the appeal has no qualms chasing up the now £140, She will go to any length to seek retribution.

Surely when naivety is the only error then we should be encouraged to offer leniency.

But this is my space, I have a permit,
I didn't know I had to display my disabled badge on private land.
I've just moved in
In was only there for a few minutes
But I was in the premises
I didn't see the signs
I'd broken down.
I was visiting friends etc. etc

In reply to your 'blog' I am so sorry to see just how incorrect your comments are. May I suggest that you re-read the last paragraph after taking in the following notes. Firstly the clock only ticks 28 days after the rejection letter, 'this is clearly not a rejection letter' On the contrary it clearly says “ I personally think it more prudent at this stage not to forward your claim on to appeals. So there is no clock ticking and therefore 'No time out'... There is no rejection. We also extend the 14 day early bird discount. We do mention an independent appeals process, that is:-- “if your still aggrieved” All of which nullifies all of your bullet points.

The ONLY conditions that Popla will consider (Copied in full from the Home page.)
Grounds of appeal

The grounds under which you can appeal the parking charge notice are as follows:
The vehicle was not improperly parked: e.g. that the vehicle was not parked where stated on the parking charge notice; that you believe you were still within the time you paid for; that the voucher was clearly displayed or that the conditions were not properly signed.
The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount: e.g. that you are being asked to pay the wrong amount for the parking charge or that the charge has already been paid.
The vehicle was stolen: e.g. that the vehicle was improperly parked after being stolen. However, the fact that someone else was driving your vehicle, for example a family member, friend or colleague, is not in itself a valid ground of appeal. The fact that you told the driver that they could only use your vehicle on condition they did not get any parking tickets is not a valid ground of appeal.
I am not liable for the parking charge: e.g. that you had sold the vehicle before, or bought it after, the alleged improper parking. However, the fact that you had paid to park the vehicle in the first place (even if, for example, the voucher was not clearly displayed) is not in itself a valid ground of appeal.

Ok now back to my bullet points and you decide? Olive branch £50 or lose and its £100 and £140 (after 14 days) which is almost always the case.

There is no evil, money grabbing, intent behind our motives and I'm sorry that you think that about me or my staff. I am surprised and offended I held you in higher esteem. It is true that I care more about the proprietors than the motorist but thats because the British public think that its wrong not to try to get off a parking ticket, that's its fair to over exaggerate and lie.

I am (unfortunately) old enough to remember what it was like 25 years ago before I invented my clamp and introduced wheel clamping to the service industry. I have always represented the people who are truly aggrieved and that is the land owners who have no alternative but to employ the likes of me because we the British motorist are rude and bend rules where we can.

I like Mr. Martin feel sorry for those without the guilty mind.


Trevor Whitehouse
Chairman
ANPR Ltd and National Clamps
1989 ~ Present Day

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/anpr-right-of-reply-rejection-letter.html

Seems like Martin has left the room .......... a long time ago!

HO87

A connection with reality?

Trev's grasp of English is up to its normal standard. Apparently, he is only able to afford a pocket thesaurus which offers just one or two alternatives for each word. Or maybe its a picture thesaurus? To help understanding.

Ryan_Bryan wrote: »

IN house debt collection? Are they licensed?

Much as I'd love to nail Trev on that score if all he's doing is chasing his own company debts then he doesn't need to be licensed otherwise every company in the country would need to be licensed.

It is perfectly permissible to chase your own or a group company's debts or even a third-party company's debts owed by other businesses. You only need a licence when pursuing third-party debts owed by private individuals.

bazster

HO87 wrote: »

It is perfectly permissible to chase your own or a group company's debts or even a third-party company's debts owed by other businesses. You only need a licence when pursuing third-party debts owed by private individuals.

And then only if they are debts arising from a regulated Consumer Credit Agreement. No-one needs a licence to chase fake parking fines.

elsien

There is no evil, money grabbing, intent behind our motives and I'm sorry that you think that about me or my staff.

So sad to see an innocent entrepreneur so unfairly maligned. What is the world coming to?

Umkomaas

Before we attached any tickets, sold any contracts or erected any signs, we employed the services of Martin Cutts from the Speaking Plain English PLC to oversee our literature. He personally supervised and sanctioned all of our stationary which also included the invoices that we send to the motorists. Unfortunately this was prior to the introduction of Popla which as we know was an afterthought.

He clearly didn't 'sanction' this paragraph. Unless Trev really meant 'sectioned' :rotfl::rotfl:

esmerobbo

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Spot what's missing,

His medication!

fb1969

There is no mention of how much Trev is charging people for receiving the email.

Coupon-mad

Nor anything about them being in breach of contract with their own clients as soon as the reader gets bored and deletes his email...