Not the registered keeper. VCN parking charge and Debt recovery plus ltd. Flora Street, Sheffield

masdon

This may be a slightly unusual case, not in the process but the order of things and I'm a bit unclear what I should be doing to handle it correctly. If anyone here has experience I would really appreciate your advice.

On 22.01. 2018 whilst parked in a VCS car park in flora street, Sheffield. I received a parking charge for parking in an unmarked area. I have since found from this forum that it is a very common charge in this particular car park as a large well used area is unmarked and I'm assuming a good money spinner for VCS.

As I am not the owner of the vehicle the NTK was sent to the registered keeper who received it on 30.01.2018 and then responded by providing my details and named me as the driver on the day.

Today 7.04.2018 I received my first contact on the issue.

It is a letter from a debt recovery agency called DEBT RECOVERY PLUS LTD, it states
"most people pay their parking charges straighaway, but a small number of people don't. we're writing to you because you've not yet paid our client, and they've now asked us to collect payment"

the initial fine was £100 and of course as usual with these things its now £160 and it says if I want to settle I must pay by 18.04.18 and goes on to provide details of how to pay, to call them on 02082346775 if I think I am not liable and then threatens court action against me.

It also has a lovely little section at the bottom of the page saying this:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION : SUPREME COURT DECISION ABOUT PARKING CHARGES
You've probably heard people say that parking charges aren't lawful and that motorists shouldn't pay them. However, in November 2015 a parking operator, like our client, took a motorist to court for a parking charge - and won. The supreme court ruled that the parking charge was lawful. The ruling is seen as an important test case; for parking operators, like our client. You can find details online at www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html!!!8221;

The supreme court!? I'm not very well educated on the court system but being threatened with the supreme court for a parking charge did make me laugh.. and put the image of a north Korean leader in my head which was most unpleasant:rotfl:.

Jokes aside:cool:, this is the first correspondence I have for the charge and it is from a debt collector, I did not receive the original option to pay the immoral charge even if had wanted to, which of course I wouldn't have, but surely the first letter I receive shouldn't be from a debt collector?

I had assumed I would receive the same notice as the original one sent to the registered keeper which I would have then been able to appeal (probably unsuccessfully) and then follow the info from the stickies here.

What would be my best course of action here? To find a [FONT=&quot]a suitable response letter to a debt recovery firm or something else?[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Thanks for reading and your help


cheers


Don[/FONT]

Quentin

Everyone is politely asked not to start a thread until they have read up on this in the newbies faq thread near the top of the forum.


Go there now to learn about the game you are now caught up in


You look to be too late to appeal


Ignoring debt collectors is covered in the FAQ.


Ignore everything now except court correspondence or a lbcca. They have 6 years to take legal action


If it comes to that come back for advice on how to defend it at that time

The_Deep

you said

this is the first correspondence I have for the charge

but went on to say

I did receive the original option to pay the immoral charge

Please clarify. The answer to your question will be found in the stickies.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

masdon

Quentin

No point posting any drp correspondence!


See https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

masdon

The_Deep wrote: »

you said

this is the first correspondence I have for the charge

but went on to say

I did receive the original option to pay the immoral charge

Please clarify. The answer to your question will be found in the stickies.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Thanks for the reply, the info and the heads up.. i meant to say "did not" and have edited the post.

its good to hear that its not so straight forward in their favor as is made out to be.

Coupon-mad

Not so straightforward in their favour, far from it! We win 99% of cases here even if they try a claim.