Ludicrous PCN from Vehicle Control Services Ltd.

HermanMunster

A work in progress, but I hope something like this may cause them a certain amount of aggravation:

I refer to your letter dated xxxxxxx and postmarked xxxxxxx. I note that you will issue a Letter Before Action before commencing legal proceedings and you are currently therefore acting in a debt collecting capacity.

As stated in my previous correspondence the debt is denied, your client has no cause of action against me, and I require you to refer the matter back to your client and cease and desist all contact with me except for the purpose of dealing with my complaint.

Not only have you failed even to acknowledge, let alone address, my complaint, but you have additionally breached the following 19 terms of the Credit Services Association Code of Practice:

1a) conduct its business in compliance with all relevant legislation, regulations, regulatory guidance and requirements and this Code of Practice

You have no cause of action against me as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). Furthermore, you have implied that the case of Elliott v Loake [1982] requires me to provide the name and address of the driver whereas in fact it is an entirely irrelevant criminal case. Additionally you have failed to comply with the remainder of the CSA Code of Practice as detailed below.

1u) take appropriate steps to ensure the accuracy of data processed by it and in particular data relating to individuals and their debts

You have failed to confirm that the alleged contravention ever occurred at all, and I have still yet to see any evidence that it did, yet you have persisted in pursuing me for the alleged charge. You have also stated that I failed to submit an appeal which is incorrect. Furthermore, there was no requirement for me to submit an appeal within 28 days of the PCN, as you state. The appeal was submitted within the required timescale and you may not now attempt to introduce new terms and conditions.

1v) when an account is reasonably disputed or a complaint is received, suspend collection activity and investigate and where applicable refer the matter to their client

I have disputed the charge and made a formal complaint in my letter of xxxxxxxxxx, yet you have continued to contact me and threaten the issue of a Letter Before Action “should the matter not be resolved” without addressing the issues raised in my previous correspondence.

1y) communicate with customers fairly and transparently, and not intentionally mislead them

You have intentionally misrepresented the legal process by implying that a CCJ that may have an effect on my future creditworthiness and employability would be automatically entered following a successful hearing without need for any further application to the court. Additionally you have intentionally attempted to mislead me by suggesting that Elliott v Loake [1982] is relevant to this case which it clearly is not. Further, as stated above, you have implied that my previous appeal was not submitted within the required timescale by introducing new and misleading terms and conditions that do not exist.

1aa) treat customers fairly and not subject customers (or their authorised representatives) to aggressive practices, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether lawful or not

Please see the above (1y) – such misrepresentation and misleading statements are deceitful, unfair and improper.

3a) cease recovery activity whilst investigating a complaint

Please see above (1v).

3b) acknowledge receipt of a complaint, and advise of the timescales for investigation

You have failed both to acknowledge and advise of the timescales for investigation of my complaint of xxxxxxxx.

3d) handle and deal with complaints, whether verbal or written, promptly and in a clear manner

You have failed to deal with my complaint of xxxxxxxx.

3e) advise complainants of their right to refer their complaint to the CSA, as and where appropriate

You have failed to advise me of my right to refer my complaint to the CSA.

3f) take appropriate remedial action in instances of failing or error

You have failed to take remedial action having failed to deal with my complaint.

3j) cease recovery activity whilst investigating a valid dispute

Please see above (1v).

3k) provide a response detailing the member’s conclusion to the dispute

You have failed to provide such a response.

3l) provide sufficient information to justify the stated conclusion

Having failed to provide a response detailing your conclusion to the dispute, you have additionally failed to justify any conclusion.

7e) when making written contact, adhere to the CSA Guidance on Debt Collection Communication, and ensure communications are written and produced in line with applicable regulations, legislation and regulatory guidance

You have failed to adhere to the following requirements of the CSA guidance on Debt Collection Communication Section D, Content - Legal:

1. Describing the legal process

1.1. The OFT has seen a number of standard letters issued by DCAs which contain inaccuracies and omissions in their description of the debt recovery procedure and the legal process, and which fail to mention that steps are required before enforcement action can be taken. For example:
• Letters which set out the potential enforcement actions following non-payment of a County Court Judgment (eg bailiffs seizing goods, employers deducting money from wages) without indicating that a further application to the court is required before enforcement action can be taken (ie to obtain a Warrant of Execution, Attachment of Earnings, Charging Order, etc); or
• Letters presuming the awarding of a Judgment (eg stating “when Judgment is granted…” as opposed to “if Judgment is granted…”)
• Letters referring to Bankruptcy and Charging Orders where it is not clear that a staged process is involved.

1.2. Sending such letters would, in the OFT’s view, potentially be an unfair or oppressive business practice in breach of several sections of the DCG.

1.3. Although the OFT does not expect to see every stage of the process set out in letters of this type, a correct indication of the steps required before enforcement action can be taken should be provided to prevent letters from being misleading, potentially exploiting customers’ lack of knowledge and being perceived by recipients as threatening.

1.4. Members are reminded that the granting of Judgments and other orders are court decisions and letters should not pre-empt a particular outcome eg that a Judgment will be granted. Communications should not mislead customers to believe that the outcome of legal proceedings will be determined other than at the discretion of the court.

1.5. If a DCA wants to refer to the process that may be followed after a debt is unpaid, it is the responsibility of the DCA to understand and correctly state the process.

You have misrepresented the legal process as described above. You have failed to indicate that a further application to the court is required before enforcement action can be taken. Your communications are further misleading in that you have pre-empted that I will be liable for Court Fees, further solicitor’s costs and statutory interest whereas in fact this is a judgment at the discretion of the court.

2. Appropriate and viable legal action

2.1. Standard letters should not threaten legal action which cannot be taken or which refers to the wrong jurisdiction. For example:
• The threat of Charging Orders where there is no property;
• Threatening to sue in a County Court where the customer is resident in Scotland;
• Threatening Bankruptcy or Sequestration proceedings below the statutory threshold

2.2. Members stating that they may take legal action as a potential consequence of nonpayment must be able to support their claims that this is a viable and legitimate option available to them that, on the basis of current information, they would take if the customer does not engage. If the company cannot support such claims, then they should not threaten this course of action.

You have no cause of action against me as keeper since your client has failed to comply with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). Elliott v Loake [1982] is entirely irrelevant in this case and provides no basis for an assumption regarding the identity of the driver except in a very specific set of circumstances which do not apply. I respectfully refer you to Mawdesley & Yorke v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary & DPP [2003].

3. Timing of issue of letters referring to legal action

3.2. Letters which refer to legal action would, in the OFT’s view, have the potential to be perceived as a threat of legal action and therefore could be an unfair and oppressive business practice:
• against someone who has a legitimate dispute with the original creditor; or
• when information on the account may be incorrect; or
• if the account could not be pursued through the courts, for example if the debt is statute barred.

3.3. Therefore, even on non-trace-and-collect instructions where the DCA is relying on the information provided by the creditor as being accurate, the DCA should consider whether reference to legal proceedings in a first letter is appropriate. Also, the actions of a Member may be considered aggressive if its first contact with a customer threatens legal action if the customer has not been recently requested to make contact to discuss a payment proposal.

You have made reference to legal proceedings in your first correspondence with me despite the fact that I dispute the charge with the original creditor, you hold incorrect information on the account, and the account could not be pursued through the courts as your client has no cause of action against me as keeper, as detailed above.

10a) only state an intention to commence proceedings that are reasonably likely to be undertaken against or applied for in respect of the customer

As explained you have no cause of action to commence proceedings.

10c) not mislead customers as to the consequences or inevitability of consequences arising from any legal or bankruptcy action

As described above, you have sought to mislead regarding the legal process and consequences of proceedings.

10d) comply with section D (“Content - Legal”) of the CSA’s Standard Debt Collection Communication Guidance document

See above (7e)

10k) only impose such costs and interest on customers as it is lawfully entitled

Notwithstanding that Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) does not apply in any case, should you attempt to use this to pursue me as keeper then statute limits my liability to the amount of the original parking charge only. I have seen no evidence that a charge of £54 for an agent working in a debt collection capacity to print and post a mass-produced template letter was detailed on the signage at the site of the alleged contravention.

10n) comply with section D (“Content - Legal”) of the CSA’s Standard Debt Collection Communication Guidance document

See above (7e)

As you have failed to address my complaint and continued to act in breach of the CSA Code of Practice I will now refer the matter to the CSA. Furthermore, I intend to raise this matter with the SRA in view of your misrepresentation of the legal process and deliberate misuse of Elliot v Loake [1982]. I reserve the right to make a further complaint to the Office of Fair Trading for your use of unfair trading practices, as detailed above, if I am not satisfied with the outcome of my complaint to the CSA. Additionally, I consider that you may have also breached the FCA code of practice, Consumer Credit sourcebook, chapter 7 and reserve the right to bring an additional complaint following the resolution of my CSA complaint.

As no liability exists, there is now no reasonable case for you to process my data. I now require you destroy my personal data, apart from that needed to handle my complaint, within 14 days. Failure to do this will result in a complaint to the ICO.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant stuff!

You could conclude by telling them that:

This series of misleading threats against a party who cannot be held liable under the applicable law, is conduct which I have clearly specified already, as being wholly unjustified. This continued harassment is now causing unwarranted and substantial damage and distress. I have neither consented to the processing of my data, nor have I ever entered into any contract as an individual with Vehicle Control Services Ltd. I object to any further processing of my data by BW Legal and your client and you must consider this a Section 10 notice against both companies.



(You must give them 21 days to respond to a section 10 notice).

HermanMunster

Thanks Coupon-mad. Will put that at the end and get it off to the 'lawyers', along with something to the CSA and SRA.

HermanMunster

Failed to respond to the section 10 notice. I see a complaint to the ICO heading their way

The_Deep

Don't disturb the sleeping dog. As much as you might be up for the fight the simple truth is that regardless of how strong you are a small claims court appearance is still an unnecessary hassle.

I disagree, give the the dog a poke. A day in court against a PPC can be cathartic. At the end, when you win, you can ask for all your costs for unreasonable behaviour under CPR27.14(2)(g).

Coupon-mad

HermanMunster wrote: »

Failed to respond to the section 10 notice. I see a complaint to the ICO heading their way

Good, go for it!

Have you done CSA and SRA complaints too, as set out on LoveNorfolk's thread, about their misleading letters (or are you waiting for more misleading letters first)?

Herzlos

Did you complain to the DVLA, too, for releasing the information in the first place?

HermanMunster

CSA complaint is done and 'being investigated'. SRA is ready to go but haven't sent it yet, thought I'd give them a chance to dig themselves into a deeper hole first.

I complained to DVLA very early on, and got what I assume is a standard response of 'they're a member of an ATA and have to go through a probation period' etc. It all died down for a while after that so I never followed it up but maybe I should now. Perhaps something along the lines of them having no cause of action against me as keeper yet ongoing harrassment despite me explaining that, therefore misusing the personal data divulged by DVLA without reasonable cause in the first place?

Coupon-mad

Yes, why not? We know that the DVLA will stay in fob-off mode but if complaints mount up then their heads come briefly out of the sand to review the issue and sometimes take it seriously. It's a case of them getting so many complaints about an issue that the DVLA struggle to keep lifting that carpet ever higher and may have to do something to clear the dust...