some help pcn challenge

eddy1

apart from the fact that ntk imo should not have been requested and sent


can anyone advise if it is compliant from photo


thanks


http://s1049.photobucket.com/user/jcardo1/media/IMAG0105_zpsada584a4.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

Dee140157

I am not the expert on picking out whether a NTK is compliant or not. It is something I struggle with. Can anyone else help eddy 1?

eddy1

can anyone please advise if NTK (see link to photo) is compliant
have complained to DVLA that it should not have been sent to keeper
awaiting outcome of this complaint


http://s1049.photobucket.com/user/jcardo1/media/IMAG0105_zpsada584a4.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0


eddy1

eddy1

hi all


I have had a "polite reminder" that an outstanding PCN has not been paid and that due to the seriousness of the situation independent legal advice should be sought, as they will refer it to a debt collection agency to take legal action
additionally the PPC go on to recommend that "internet forum advice should not be relied upon regarding a PCN, and that forums ill advise appellants".


they are obviously monitoring the forums, as previous posts have stated


it is a bit rich really that PPC's should put this in writing, as ironically it is free advertising for the forums and will alert people to this valuable website


any thoughts folks

Dee140157

Keep ignoring.

Edna_Basher

Although I can see the name SIP Parking Limited on the NTK, I can see no mention of the Company Registration Number (06752126) or the Registered Address (Peter House, Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 5AN). It is against the Law for a company not to display these details on its business letters, yet I can see details only of a PO Box address.

In 2012 this company changed its name from SIP Clamping and Security Provider Limited; this probably tells you everything you need to know about the characters you are dealing with here.

Despite what SIP say, a debt collection agency can do nothing more than write scary letters; they are certainly not in a position to take legal action against you.

eddy1

many thanks for the observations edna
is this not a valid NTK then?
eddy

eddy1

just looked at reverse edna
and these details are on the back


eddy

Edna_Basher

eddy1 wrote: »

these details are on the back

Thanks eddy1 - that's a shame.

I've been working my way back over your thread and can see that SIP have made life very complicated. I just can’t see how they can justify pursuing Keeper y when they already knew the identity of the Driver x. Regardless of whether or not Keeper y subsequently mistakenly indicated that they were the driver, SIP should not have written to them in the first place because they already knew who the driver was.

Although you mention that following the initial appeal by Driver x, SIP wrote back to Driver x requesting a copy of the ticket they had purchased (and where Driver x didn’t reply to the request), you don’t say if SIP ever formally rejected Driver x’s appeal, providing them with the means to escalate the appeal to the IAS. If not, I suppose it would be reasonable to infer that this appeal is still “live” in which case SIP should not be pursuing the alleged debt.

I see in Post #34 you note that you received a letter from Morgan Knightly & Co. Debt Collection Agency. You’ll be interested to know that according to the members’ list on the IPC website, Morgan Knightly & Co. is one of SIP Limited’s own trading names. I believe that the sole shareholder and director of SIP Parking Limited is also a shareholder and director of Morgan Knightly & Co. Ltd.

This isn’t any old Debt Collection Agency you’ve been dealing with, this is really just SIP Parking Limited in disguise. A number of banks and other lenders (e.g. Wonga) have recently landed in hot water as a result of similar sharp practices. This is another piece of ammunition for you to fire off to Trading Standards.

eddy1

hi edna


when the keeper appealed, they rejected both appeals
we appealed through ias, but just gave a story, so they rejected the appeal, then we found the website and forum
we received a threatening letter stating that they were going to refer it to morgan knightly, however they are a firm apparently
yes I do recall Wonga getting into trouble threatening a law firm that did not exist, however this company does appear to exist, they have a website (although no guarantees of legitimacy, with inconsistent spellings of knightly)
they go on to add on their website that they have teamed up with SIP as they are an example of an honest car parking operation( not an exact quote)
many thanks edna for your observations, and yes this will be going to trading standards
regards
eddy