We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
I.C.C. Legal Services / Car Parking Partnership - Amount Due £160
flanagans323
Posts: 2 Newbie
I received a letter from I.C.C. Legal Services early December and came on here to find out what I should do.
I.C.C. informed me that the offence in question was on the 08th August which also seemed far too long to leave it to contact myself.
They were informing me that they were working for their client Car Parking Partnership and as I had not answered any of CPP's correspondence (which I had never received) that they were now responsible for getting me to cough up.
I wrote with an early appeal to I.C.C. using the template in the sticky on the forum and received this response from them some 36 days later (today) stating the following:
Dear Mr XXXX,
RE: OUR CLIENT – CAR PARKING PARTNERSHIP
AMOUNT DUE: £ 160.00
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding our reference XXX-XXXXX which has been received in our office. We can confirm that we will be continuing with recovery of the above from you and your ‘appeal’ has been received somewhat too late in the process of recovery. Car Parking Partnership have evidently sent to you all of the required correspondence within the correct timescales, as set out within the BPA (British Parking Association) guidelines and regulations. However, I will now take the time to answer the comments that you have raised, and whilst writing would also draw your attention to the other case reference: XXX-XXXXX that we have also written to you about, which you have not referred to you in your letter, as most points will apply to both cases.
a) The charges applied to you by issue of this CPN CPXXXXXXXX and CPN CPXXXXXXXX relate directly to Car Parking Partnership “Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss” (GPEOL). In calculating the GPEOL they have included the operational & administrative costs that as a company they incur solely because motorists breach the advertised Terms & Conditions at the registered landowners locations they manage on behalf of and at the bequest of. If motorists adhered to the advertised terms & conditions at each location, and subsequently paid any fees due for not doing so, these costs would not exist. There is a basic tenet of English law that the burden of proof lies with the accuser – in this instance you allege that the appropriate authority does not exist but have failed to provide any tangible proof to support this submission.
b) There is very clear and sufficient signage for both notices. CPXXXXXXXX was of course issued for being parked or waiting on a designated red route and the signage clearly says ‘Red Route No Stopping at Any Time’ ‘Warning Red Route – Emergency access’ and CPXXXXXXXX was issued for parking without clearly displaying the required permit or pay and display ticket. Once again the signage here says ‘Visitors parking only Failure to display a valid ticket will result in the issue of a fixed penalty ticket’. I fail to see the ambiguity of these signs.
c) We act on behalf of Car Parking Partnership who are employed by the Hospital to effectively monitor their private car parks when such instances have occurred. Our services are utilised when notices have not been paid and every other means to collect has been exhausted.
d) The notices attached to the vehicle and subsequent letters sent by Car Parking Partnership comply with all relevant regulations as set out by the BPA. Our involvement and correspondence is sent to inform you that the client may issue Legal Proceedings against you and therefore does not breach any contract/terms as suggested.
e) The driver of the vehicle willingly parked on private land and therefore accepted the terms and conditions as set out by the land owner.
The land owner is aware that vehicles that have not complied with the parking regulations will be issued with a parking notice, and again on both of these occasions the notices were issued correctly. If there was a valid reason as to why the vehicle had been parked incorrectly, then an appeal should have been made.
Since the issue of the Notices, Car Parking Partnership have given several opportunities for you/driver to make contact with them to either appeal or to pay the notices at a discounted rate. However, the original notice and subsequent correspondence seems to have been ignored until our involvement as no appeals have been received. If an appeal was made and CPP rejected these reasons, then you/driver would have been furnished with a POPLA verification code which would have given the alternative option to send a further appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) board which is an independent appeal board, which I am sure that you are aware of. However, it is now also too late to appeal to them as an appeal must be received by POPLA within 28 days following the verification code having been provided. The final correspondence from CPP which was a Notice to Keeper letter, clearly states that it is now too late to supply the name of the driver or to make a representation against the CPN.
1) Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 states that the Registered Keeper of the vehicle becomes liable for the unpaid parking charges if the name and address of the driver is not disclosed to the creditor within the 28 day period set out in the Notice to Keeper letter.
2) The notices whilst parking on private land were issued correctly and the photographic evidence which I have enclosed for your perusal shows the signage was visible and present. In the event of Legal Proceedings being issued these documents will be presented in the Court bundle. You have also referred to the costs and out of pocket expenses that you may have incurred in researching details in relation to the notices, but would advise that a Judge will not look to award costs on this basis, although a nominal claim for costs may be considered.
In summary, the user/keeper of the vehicle has been given adequate opportunity to resolve matters before our involvement as notices CPXXXXXXXX and CPXXXXXXXX were issued as far back as August 2014 and September 2014 respectively, and we once again request settlement of the above amount of £160.00 from you by return please.
After I received this response I came back on to the forums and noticed I should now post this as a new thread and have sent emails to both DVLA and the BPA as suggested.
Any help would be much appreciated...
I.C.C. informed me that the offence in question was on the 08th August which also seemed far too long to leave it to contact myself.
They were informing me that they were working for their client Car Parking Partnership and as I had not answered any of CPP's correspondence (which I had never received) that they were now responsible for getting me to cough up.
I wrote with an early appeal to I.C.C. using the template in the sticky on the forum and received this response from them some 36 days later (today) stating the following:
Dear Mr XXXX,
RE: OUR CLIENT – CAR PARKING PARTNERSHIP
AMOUNT DUE: £ 160.00
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding our reference XXX-XXXXX which has been received in our office. We can confirm that we will be continuing with recovery of the above from you and your ‘appeal’ has been received somewhat too late in the process of recovery. Car Parking Partnership have evidently sent to you all of the required correspondence within the correct timescales, as set out within the BPA (British Parking Association) guidelines and regulations. However, I will now take the time to answer the comments that you have raised, and whilst writing would also draw your attention to the other case reference: XXX-XXXXX that we have also written to you about, which you have not referred to you in your letter, as most points will apply to both cases.
a) The charges applied to you by issue of this CPN CPXXXXXXXX and CPN CPXXXXXXXX relate directly to Car Parking Partnership “Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss” (GPEOL). In calculating the GPEOL they have included the operational & administrative costs that as a company they incur solely because motorists breach the advertised Terms & Conditions at the registered landowners locations they manage on behalf of and at the bequest of. If motorists adhered to the advertised terms & conditions at each location, and subsequently paid any fees due for not doing so, these costs would not exist. There is a basic tenet of English law that the burden of proof lies with the accuser – in this instance you allege that the appropriate authority does not exist but have failed to provide any tangible proof to support this submission.
b) There is very clear and sufficient signage for both notices. CPXXXXXXXX was of course issued for being parked or waiting on a designated red route and the signage clearly says ‘Red Route No Stopping at Any Time’ ‘Warning Red Route – Emergency access’ and CPXXXXXXXX was issued for parking without clearly displaying the required permit or pay and display ticket. Once again the signage here says ‘Visitors parking only Failure to display a valid ticket will result in the issue of a fixed penalty ticket’. I fail to see the ambiguity of these signs.
c) We act on behalf of Car Parking Partnership who are employed by the Hospital to effectively monitor their private car parks when such instances have occurred. Our services are utilised when notices have not been paid and every other means to collect has been exhausted.
d) The notices attached to the vehicle and subsequent letters sent by Car Parking Partnership comply with all relevant regulations as set out by the BPA. Our involvement and correspondence is sent to inform you that the client may issue Legal Proceedings against you and therefore does not breach any contract/terms as suggested.
e) The driver of the vehicle willingly parked on private land and therefore accepted the terms and conditions as set out by the land owner.
The land owner is aware that vehicles that have not complied with the parking regulations will be issued with a parking notice, and again on both of these occasions the notices were issued correctly. If there was a valid reason as to why the vehicle had been parked incorrectly, then an appeal should have been made.
Since the issue of the Notices, Car Parking Partnership have given several opportunities for you/driver to make contact with them to either appeal or to pay the notices at a discounted rate. However, the original notice and subsequent correspondence seems to have been ignored until our involvement as no appeals have been received. If an appeal was made and CPP rejected these reasons, then you/driver would have been furnished with a POPLA verification code which would have given the alternative option to send a further appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) board which is an independent appeal board, which I am sure that you are aware of. However, it is now also too late to appeal to them as an appeal must be received by POPLA within 28 days following the verification code having been provided. The final correspondence from CPP which was a Notice to Keeper letter, clearly states that it is now too late to supply the name of the driver or to make a representation against the CPN.
1) Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 states that the Registered Keeper of the vehicle becomes liable for the unpaid parking charges if the name and address of the driver is not disclosed to the creditor within the 28 day period set out in the Notice to Keeper letter.
2) The notices whilst parking on private land were issued correctly and the photographic evidence which I have enclosed for your perusal shows the signage was visible and present. In the event of Legal Proceedings being issued these documents will be presented in the Court bundle. You have also referred to the costs and out of pocket expenses that you may have incurred in researching details in relation to the notices, but would advise that a Judge will not look to award costs on this basis, although a nominal claim for costs may be considered.
In summary, the user/keeper of the vehicle has been given adequate opportunity to resolve matters before our involvement as notices CPXXXXXXXX and CPXXXXXXXX were issued as far back as August 2014 and September 2014 respectively, and we once again request settlement of the above amount of £160.00 from you by return please.
After I received this response I came back on to the forums and noticed I should now post this as a new thread and have sent emails to both DVLA and the BPA as suggested.
Any help would be much appreciated...
0
Comments
-
no "offences" were committed here
I suggest you read the debt collector section (post #4) in the NEWBIES sticky thread now
then this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663
bear in mind this could go on for 6 years under SCC rules0 -
At £160 I would take the court option if they want to try it..
Also as they have headed the letter Legal services have they put a name of a solicitor on the letter who is providing these "legal services"
If Not can you forward the letter to SRA complaints pointing out they appear to be claiming they are involved in legal services which is covered by the legal services act.
Contrary to legal services act 2007/29/section/18 without licence for "legal services"
They only hold Consumer Credit and Data Protection and the letter they have sent by implication states they are involved in legal services.
Then you can make a complaint to the Credit Services Association which they are a member that one of their members is ignoring the code of practice on multiple counts
http://www.csa-uk.com/assets/documents/compliance-and-guidance
/code_of_practice.pdf
As they are members they are signed to the code of practice, makes interesting reading and a complaint can result in suspension of their trade membership.I do Contracts, all day every day.0 -
Also if everyone with a debt collectors letter on behalf of a PPC drags them through the http://www.csa-uk.com/assets/documents/compliance-and-guidance/code_of_practice.pdf
Process from end to end, it will soon make these bottom feeders think twice about taking on PPC work.
To collect or to try to breaks just about every point in the code.I do Contracts, all day every day.0 -
Well, I have now reported I.C.C. Legal Services to SRA complaints as suggested, however a check on the CSA website shows they are not a member and therefore I can not file a complaint about them to the CSA.
Let's see what happens next, should I be writing back to I.C.C. Legal Services in response to their letter informing them that I'd never received any of the earlier correspondence they say I have been sent and that I therefore insist on a POPLA code? Or do I just leave things now?
I've also had a good read of the debt collection section thanks again guys.0 -
Marktheshark wrote: »Also if everyone with a debt collectors letter on behalf of a PPC drags them through the http://www.csa-uk.com/assets/documents/compliance-and-guidance/code_of_practice.pdf
Process from end to end, it will soon make these bottom feeders think twice about taking on PPC work.
To collect or to try to breaks just about every point in the code.
Once I took Debt Recovery Plus through this process twice, they decided they no longer wanted to be a member of the CSA :eek:Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam0 -
They claim CSA membership on their website so you could complain to CSA that this company is falsely claiming to be a member. Not as good as code-of-practice breaches but every bit of hassle you can cause them is worth it.
You could also complain to Trading Standards, because falsely claiming to be a member of a trade association is an offence under the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (although, frankly, without an avalanche of complaints TS is unlikely to do anything).
I wouldn't bother writing to ICC themselves, toothless debt collector scum are best ignored IMO. What you could do is to complain to the BPA that CPP has set its debt collectors on you despite never having previously written to you, and that you have therefore been denied your right to appeal to PoPLA.Je suis Charlie.0 -
It is interesting to read about the background for ICC Legal Services.
Cash at bank: £7,285
Debtors: £775
Creditors due within one year: £9,008
Total Assets less Current Liabilities -£948
Shareholders Funds / Net Worth: £570
Full details in: 2013 Accounts
I personally wouldn't worry receiving letters threatening legal action from a firm in such a perilous financial position. They failed to lodge accounts for October 2014! A little about a Director
Director Overview Colin Portlock. holds 1 appointments at 1 active companies, has resigned from 1 companies and held 2 appointments at 1 dissolved companies. Colin began their first appointment at the age of 48. Their longest current appointment spans 10 years and 0 months at I.C.C. LEGAL SERVICES (UK) LIMITED. The combined cash at bank value for all businesses where Colin holds a current appointment equals £7,285, with a combined total current assets value of £8,060 and total current liabilities of £9,008. Roles associated with Colin Portlock within the recorded businesses include: Director, Company Secretary
Information easily obtained from the web.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards