Excel signage in Prestwich impossible to read, IAS thinks not....!

traceynob

Letter received from Zenith Collections today, with a very kind offer. As the debt has now apparently been assigned to them, they are offering me a discounted rate of £79.99 to avoid the possible necessity and expense of court action. (what does possible necessity even mean...?)

Strangely they are using the same reference number as DRP, and on the other side of the letter they refer to themselves as ..........Debt Recovery Plus.....:rotfl:

I know all the advice is to ignore but I am so tempted to send a sarcastic response back, if only to waste their time and hopefully make them a little bit annoyed/frustrated......?

Coupon-mad

Nope, save your breath. This is a computerised letter chain and 'computer says no'! If you respond you will get a 'MY FINDINGS' reply saying you are too late to appeal. Another boring template!

traceynob

After a few months of silence, a heavy-handed letter has arrived from BW Legal, with the words 'court' and 'CCJ' mentioned quite a lot. It's not clear whether they are writing in the capacity of debt collectors or solicitors as they appear to be both?


I am getting to the point where I wish I could take Excel to court to stop them bothering me!! Along those lines, are there any ADR's or ombudsman where the consumer can initiate proceedings against the parking company as a trade/service dispute? Don't suggest DVLA, SRA, local MP, Financial Ombudsman etc as these have all been tried and are all useless.


I'm also thinking of putting the below in my response to BW Legal, any feedback will be welcome.....

Should Excel wish to commence legal proceedings despite the lack of evidence of a contract being in place, then please note that this will be vigorously contested. Should it be found that Excel’s claim was frivolous and without legal basis, then we will issue an invoice with respect to the time spent contesting the illegally issued PCN. Our costs are detailed below;

Cost of written response to each communication received from Excel/agents of Excel = £20
Cost of research/preparation = £25 per hour
Cost of lost wages in attending court = £270 per day (less any award given in court
Current costs to date are:
7 x letters (3 to Excel, 3 to DRP/Zenith, 1 to BW legal) = £140.00
5 x hours research/preparation = £125.00

hoohoo

BW Legal are new kids on the block, so we dont know how to respond yet. If you want to post up a redacted letter we can advise.

traceynob

It's hopefully here....

http://imgur.com/kqLfi4g


I've also noticed that the Excel sign says PCN's will be issued for failing to purchase and/or display a valid ticket or permit. Surely that means if you purchase a ticket you don't necessarily need to display it as well....?

Ralph-y

so ........

"which could result in the commencement of legal procedures"

debtcrawler ......

so .......



ignore

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

From their 'Collections Team' and talking about 'in the event Excel issues court proceedings' so it's a debt collector letter like those we've seen before from debt collection sections of solicitor firms like Wright Hassall.

Here's a thread where Excel are using WH instead but the effect is the same:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5400017

You could ignore that particular computerised letter and only respond to a Letter Before Claim, or you could reply with a clear formal response making it clear that they won't win if they try a small claim in your case. Examples are on the forum if you search LBCCC (even though this is not an LBCCC and you could ignore it and see if one arrives).

It depends what suits you. I'd ignore that template letter but not everyone would, some people prefer to go for a robust response.

hoohoo

BW Legal are members of the CSA so have to obey their code of practice.

I would therefore engage them by email and if they fail to obey the CSA code of practice, file a formal complaint.

Dear BW Legal,

The debt is denied. The signage was not sufficiently visible to form a contract. Please refer the debt back to the principal.

Please also note that as the debt has been formally denied from day one, your debt collection costs of £54 are not appropriate. The amount is also excessive .I refer you to ParkingEye v Somerfield where debt collection costs of £60 were found to probably be a penalty by HHJ Heggarty.

Complaint
I wish to raise a formal complaint regarding your letter. Requiring a response within 10 days to a letter before claim is against practice directions, which require a minimum of 14 days.

Additionally, you are misrepresenting the legal process. A CCJ is not automatically entered following a successful hearing. The losing party has 14 days to make payment and if they do this has no effect on credit or employability.


Please follow your formal complaints procedure. If I am not happy with your response, I will escalate to the CSE.

traceynob

Thanks Hoo Hoo, I'll fire off a response along these lines tomorrow. I know I could/should probably ignore but I just can't stop myself.......it's like a game of ping-pong, just got to bat it back

traceynob

Worrying and annoying development......someone from Excel has today telephoned the mobile phone of the registered keeper to further harass and demand payment. This is despite us never contacting them by phone or giving details of any personal phone numbers. How have they managed to get this information? Why is this even allowed?
I despair......! How difficult can it be for the government to put regulation in place to stop this massive scam affecting hundreds of thousands of people every year?