More JAS nonsense

BlackSpangle

All,

Got an invoice from PDC (Dara Debt Recovery) earlier this month, claiming an invoice for an alleged parking violation in Truro Staples/Currys. Interestingly, the DCA letter was entitled Notice To Keeper, even though it was acting on behalf of JAS Parking (I have to check BPA/PoFA rules on this - not at all sure it's legal). Important note: there was no information on any appeals process provided in the NtK, which I thought the BPA demanded.

From reading the Newbies thread, I see that for JAS, the advice seems to be to react to the initial ticket for appeal (which will be rejected so you can go to PoPLA). In my case, however, I'm being invoiced as the keeper of the vehicle, so I ended up sending two letters out, post NtK.

The first was to PDC stating that I denied the debt, and to refer it back to their client, with the added claim that any further communication from PDC would be harassment. The second was to JAS Parking saying that I rejected their invoice on grounds of inadequate signage, standing to issue tickets, no GPEOL and failure to mitigate loss by warning drivers. Essentially, the short form template from the sticky thread.

So far, nothing back from the JAS mob, but I did get another from PDC, restating that they want money, and that if I don't pay up they will pass it on to debt recovery (forgetting that they are the debt recovery company :rotfl:); and that instructions for payment were overleaf on the document - which was a single sided document (Honestly - what muppets...).

So, now I'm thinking of another two letters:

1. To PDC stating that they're now on a harassment kick, because I warned them not to pursue this false debt.
2. To JAS restating case for appeal, and saying that using PDC as their shell company is clearly intended to obfuscate BPA processes so that appeals are not treated in a timely manner, and is thus behaving in bad faith, which sinks them if this ever got to court.

I fully expect "Adam" from JAS to write back saying "Appeal denied", but hopefully with a PoPLA code so I can get the long form letters rolling, but with this daft game, I'm not so sure.

I know that this Dara character owns both JAS and PDC, so it's a pretty obvious trick to avoid people appealing properly.

But the question is: should I be sending out the next two letters, or just ignore these jokers until the appeal rejection comes along?

EnigmaPart1

why the fool calls himself Adam i do not know

Ive emailed him in one my appeals telling him I know that's not his real name so he can drop the whole silly game.

In one of my popla appeals i called his Gpeol loss document a tissue of lies.

He didnt like that

BlackSpangle

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

why the fool calls himself Adam i do not know

Because according to legend, Adam was created from dust, a bit like their claims? A bit of Freudian slippery going on, maybe?

bazster

BlackSpangle wrote: »

Because according to legend, Adam was created from dust, a bit like their claims? A bit of Freudian slippery going on, maybe?

I'm pretty sure he's not that bright!

bazster

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

why the fool calls himself Adam i do not know

Ive emailed him in one my appeals telling him I know that's not his real name so he can drop the whole silly game.

In one of my popla appeals i called his Gpeol loss document a tissue of lies.

He didnt like that

Next time try transparent tissue of lies :rotfl:

BlackSpangle

bazster wrote: »

Next time try transparent tissue of lies :rotfl:

I was thinking more along the lines of "presented with a level of financial honesty which would make Enron seem like paragons of proper accounting."

Or "They are to be commended for their brevity in summarising their estimated loss. If we were to merely delete all their stated losses, then we arrive at a result which is both briefer still and 100% more accurate"

But why do I think that my attempts at humour might not be quite so well received at PoPLA? I suspect I'll confine myself to the main points of the suggested text.

Having thought over the weekend, I think I will send off the extra two letters tomorrow. I don't think there's any harm in it (other than a couple of extra stamps and some stationery), and it strengthens my audit trail if the Keystone Klampers want to take this nonsense any further. I fully expect the contents of both letters to be ignored.

ampersand

Dara may send you a popla code, hoping [new] assessor Amy Riley is on playground duty that day.

BlackSpangle

ampersand wrote: »

Dara may send you a popla code, hoping [new] assessor Amy Riley is on playground duty that day.

Perhaps - but there are a couple of problems with that (leaving aside the Hail Mary pass of hoping for a less competent adjudicator).

1. Dara are listed in the BPA members list as a pure DRA. They have no appeal process, therefore cannot complete the BPA 'appeal rejected, so PoPLA' ritual.
2. The company issuing the tickets is JAS Parking Solutions - there are no other companies in the mix. The fact that JAS chose its sister company as a DRA to pursue a false debt is an irrelevance. In other words, if this is a contractual violation claim, then it is between JAS and me. I cannot see how PDC/Dara enter into the whole appeals and PoPLA process.

You know what puzzles me the most? Speaking generally here - if the claim was for a tenner, reduced to a fiver, I would generally have paid that to make it go away. I would still think I had done nothing wrong, and I would still have been fuming, but the amount involved is just so much lower than the level of hassle.

But since these people chose to rack it up to close to a hundred quid, it makes me both want to fight the bullying/injustice of it all (I hate bullies, with a passion) as well as thinking that the amounts claimed make it worth my while to join the fight.

So, even as a dishonorable and slimy business model, this whole shooting match makes no sense to me. I've taken pond life like this on before, and ended up with a PPC paying me money. I doubt I'll get that result this time, but I have no problem losing money on this process, just to get a sense of justice. And perhaps to tip the scales so that those who have lower resources than I do don't need to fight as hard.

BlackSpangle

OK,

So reading through the letters from PDC more closely, it's clear that they are actually claiming to act as JAS Parking. Their initial letter had the standard text about appealing to them and PoPLA (although their second one did not).

It's very clear that the purpose of this is to make people follow the general advice: "this is a debt collection agency - ignore". Which now makes the initial advice on the Newbie thread make more sense (ie, appeal on the ticket, not wait for NtK).

So, I've repeated the appeal I sent to JAS to this PDC shower. Again, I expect its contents to be ignored, but if it goes to PoPLA, I'll at least have the audit trail. I'm still well within the 28 days of NtK, so any attempt to do the "too late to appeal" garbage will fail.

My letter, as it stands (although happy to add/amend):

Reference: JASXXXXX

Vehicle License Number: XXXX XXX

Having more closely read your letter dated XXth XXXXXXX, 2014, I see that you are in fact representing yourselves as the injured party making a claim, and not JAS Parking Solutions. Despite your company being called “Parking Debt Collectors” trading as Dara Debt Recovery, you further threaten to pass this case to a debt recovery agency. I can only assume that your intention is to confuse vehicle keepers such that they cannot submit proper appeals, not knowing from whom any claim is being made.

I have already appealed this matter to JAS Parking Solutions, your sister company, as I discover. JAS Parking Solutions, so far, have declined to respond.

However, for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, I am also placing this appeal with you. You can take up the position of JAS, pass it back to them, or whatever, but you will follow proper BPA processes. I do not care whether the response to the appeal comes from you, or from JAS - but if the appeal is rejected, I want a proper PoPLA appeal code with that rejection letter, as per the text of your initial letter to me.

I, as the registered keeper of the vehicle above, will not pay your speculative invoice for alleged breach of contract. The details of the appeal are as follows:

1. Your signage in the XXXX Staples/Curry’s car park is pitifully inadequate, is poorly visible and does not fully inform people using the car park of the conditions under which they are parking.

2. Your claims for compensation are unfair and in no way form a genuine pre-estimate of loss. £94 does not represent in any reasonable way what losses the landowner may have suffered for any possible breach of contract. Any attempt to rely on a loss statement must contain an honest breakdown of losses directly emanating from the putative breach. If, as has been done in the past, costs like IT systems and wages for staff are included, that would not form an honest assessment of claimed loss.

3. It is is no way clear that you even have the authority to claim debts accruing for parking contract breaches on behalf the landowner. Indeed, it is not even clear that the landowner is Staples or Currys, far less that the landowner has effected a legitimate transfer of right to your company in this matter. Any attempt to rely on this will require a proper copy of the contract with attendant clauses making clear what JAS’s authority truly is. I have seen evidence of JAS providing a copy of contracts so redacted as to be worthless. It is to be hoped that we will not need to go through that pointless ritual again. From what I see, you (PDC) are claiming to be acting as the agents of JAS, who are claiming to be acting as the agents of Staples/Currys who are the tenants on the land owned by someone else. To establish standing to issue the claim, there must be a clear chain of authority demonstrated via contract.

4. You have made no attempt to mitigate loss for persons leaving the car park for any length of time while parked. Your attendant could have warned people that costs could accrue from leaving the premises, but chose not to do so.

I state again: the only responses which are acceptable to me are either a cancellation of this invoice, or a rejection of my appeal with a proper PoPLA code.

Yours,

[BlackSpangle]

BlackSpangle

My point about this JAS/PDC masquerade is this: is it worth adjusting the Newbie thread to include some text which indicates that, in this case, the "debt collectors" are actually the PPC, and so one should treat them as if they were the PPC, and reply to the NtK accordingly.

It's crystal clear this is a pathetic attempt to confuse and misdirect people, which is why fora like this one are invaluable.

ampersand

Vehicle Registration no., not 'licence'?