Tempted to write to PPC - Scotland

um5000

I've had two letters from a PPC relating to an alleged parking contravention in a car park in Scotland. The latest is marked 'final reminder'. I know from earlier posts what to expect, and that the advice is largely 'ignore'.

The letters are very careful to identify me as the registered keeper rather than the driver, and largely avoid suggesting that they can or will do anything to me personally - the only references to 'you' (me) is regarding 'your vehicle' and 'we may commence proceedings against you in a sheriff court'.

However they do mention that they may incur further costs by employing debt recovery companies or court fees, and I'm starting to think it is important to advise them that this would be a pointless exercise - since they've not identified the driver, and the 'evidence' they have put in the letter and their website is pretty inconclusive (and certainly doesn't identify their supposed 'customer'). They should already know but it wouldn't hurt to remind them, in writing, that the registered keeper is not liable for the supposed actions of every driver?

I'm also keen to put across the fact that I am not aware of myself or any other driver having entered into an agreement with them, and that they can't ask me to either comment on who I think may have driven the car (conjecture), nor can I provide them with personal details of any such drivers (protection of privacy) so that they can send more spurious claims to them.

My thinking is that by declaring the above points to them in advance, I might avoid them continuing as if I was somehow in their debt. At the very least I could save them some time, effort and money! In the event that they did decide to pursue it further, I would be able to demonstrate that I had tried to help them understand that I was not due them anything / challenged their assumptions, at an early stage? I could then rely on this at a later stage in the unlikely event that it were taken to court?

Any thoughts appreciated!

Grimble

You are over thinking this, of course they know they can only hold the driver liable, do not waste any time or a stamp.

AltheHibby

Ignoring them is the best thing unless you want to wind them up (without ever identifying the driver)

salmosalaris

Don't bother unless you want to encourage them to send more of their drivel .
They've seen it all before , won't read it and even if they did won't care less . They're only after your money

um5000

AltheHibby wrote: »

Ignoring them is the best thing unless you want to wind them up (without ever identifying the driver)

I like that idea, and it's as much about that as anything else - a way to vent my frustration at this junk mail!

But it's more than that - I'd like to draw a line in the sand and say 'no further'.

Other posts suggest that they use legitimate debt recovery firms as the next stage. These firms will rely on the PPC's word that a debt is due and has not been disputed. I'm keen to clarify in advance of that, that it is disputed and I don't acknowledge any personal contractual obligations. I can then advise any further agents working on their behalf, who otherwise will tell me I have to deal with the PPC direct before they will back off.

I suppose at best it's probably going to be ignored - but at least I'll feel I've done something. At worst, they spend time trying to pick apart my arguments, and try to elicit further responses and something that amounts to an 'admission'?

bod1467

salmosalaris wrote: »

Don't bother unless you want to encourage them to send more of their drivel .
They've seen it all before , won't read it and even if they did won't care less . They're only after your money

Pay heed to this. If you contact them you'll simply prolong their letter sending period as they'll think they have a fish on the hook that can be intimidated into either paying or outing themself as the driver.

Umkomaas

If they are saying in their letter that they will/may pursue the keeper through the courts, then you should be reporting that to Citizen's Advice Scotland. Vent your frustration via that route and add to evidence against them that they may be fraudulently attempting to hold the keeper liable.

A ranty letter from you to ECP will be like water off a duck's back - they will have seen hundreds! A criminal charge, like the one CEL is facing in Scotland, will be a far different kettle of fish!

um5000

Thanks but if I recollect correctly 'may' has a particularly distinct meaning in legal text - it doesn't indicate actual intent or requirement - so I suspect since it's been very carefully worded (a real lawyer must have looked at their letters since the copies available from earlier posts!) there wouldn't be any suggestion of attempt to defraud. If they had said 'can', 'will' or 'shall' then it would be a different story.

I much preferred their first letter - it effectively asked me to pay them or identify the driver for them.

This one seems to just be complaining to me that they haven't been paid - and hinting heavily (though never claiming!) that it is somehow my responsibility.

I'm happy to ignore them both, on the basis that I have no intention of paying or telling them my thoughts on who was driving.

But I'm trying to think a few steps ahead, and a shot across the bows at this point could underline that I'm not planning on making it easy for them at this or any later point. I could also seek to rely on it later if required to discuss it in court (I'd get recorded delivery etc). They would certainly be keen to show off their shiny new lawyer drafted standard letters at that point to show that they had been in touch and highlight that I had not responded to challenge their assertions in any way, and that my silence was deemed consent.

I'm also thinking it will become more difficult in the event the fictitious debt is passed on for collection or even sold to another company. I would feel more motivated to respond to them, since it's not their fault if they've been conned by the PPC into following up a non-existent debt. But I imagine these firms are unlikely to be interested in whether or not I agreed in the first instance.

enfield_freddy

however it is very possible for an English collection company hired by the PPC , to unwittingly use incorrect wording or use sentence's based upon English law in Scotland.


if this where to happen , there employers (the PPC) would be responsible.


sit back and await potential mistakes by collection companies based in england

Coupon-mad

But it's more than that - I'd like to draw a line in the sand and say 'no further'.

So would everyone. No chance. Ignore the letters.

um5000

Okay, so the consensus seems to be don't write to them. I'm certainly leaning that way, since do nothing is quite easy! (Physically anyway - mentally I'm not so sure!)

I had already invested time in drafting a letter though, so other than the cost of a stamp, and the potential for more letters (which I'll likely get anyway), are there any real risks?