HX CPM Non POFA compliant and citing Elliot v Locke

Mr_Picklehead

Well this one rumbles on.... My relative (despite the consensus here) appealed via IAS after reading about some successful appeals to the IAS that adopted a more legalistic approach from the offset. She correctly stated that she was not the driver and that there could be no legal keeper liability as there had not been a POFA compliant NTK. After several responses from HX CPM Limited which were all countered quoting previous legal cases in civil court the IAS decision was to uphold the PCN, and to cite Elliot V Loake to justify their decision!!!

Since the IAS decision HX CPM has twice written to my relative with their latest letter stating; "As per the enclosed letter which was previously sent to you, you were advised that you will remain liable for this PCN should you refuse to name the driver. Please note that this will be the last time we liaise with yourself and if the PCN remains unpaid by [date], it will be passed on to debt recovery"

As far as I understood such situations a debt needs to be established in civil court before it can be passed to a debt collection agency. However, I'm not certain about this. If a "debt" is still in dispute then surely it hasn't been legally established?

My relative intends to reply to this letter and to remind them that she was not the driver, and that there is no legal requirement to name the driver and furthermore because the NTK was non-POFA compliant then she can not be held liable as the registered keeper.

Redx

by all means keep up the ping pong arguments

if HX wish to try a court case using MCOL, they have 6 years to do so

that is when a judge will decide on the legalities that you are concerned about

ie:- the proof of the pudding is in the eating, not all the waffle about ther ingredients, plus ELLIOTT vs LOAKE has been rubbished in the courts on numerous occasions I believe

ps:- we all knew the IAS appeal would fail , even the MP,s know about it as they talked about it in parliament not long ago


pps:- the alleged debt can be passed onto the debt collection agency at any time for collection , but without a court order all the debt collectors can do is issue letters, which they do, in their millions , they have no power to enforce

beamerguy

Mr_Picklehead wrote: »

As far as I understood such situations a debt needs to be established in civil court before it can be passed to a debt collection agency. However, I'm not certain about this. If a "debt" is still in dispute then surely it hasn't been legally established?

WRONG ..... it's debt collectors before court and a debt collector
cannot take you to court unless they own the debt.
Debt collectors in the parking industry are simply trish trash
and CANNOT BUY OR OWN THE DEBT.

Hence EVERY DEBT COLLECTOR in the parking industry
spouts total rubbish

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5859454/debt-collectors-drp-zzps-what-they-dont-want-you-to-know&highlight=debt+collectors+drp

Mr_Picklehead

Thanks Beamerguy. Have read the link. With reagrds to the IAS my relative didn't expect to win an appeal - but there are a few victories posted on this forum, so perhaps it was worth her giving it a go.


Is the general rule of thumb to ignore all letters from the debt collector or to reply just to the very first one explaining the "debt" is disputed with the PPC (and then ignore all further letters)?

Coupon-mad

Ignore them all except if the recipient moves house within 6 years, when they must update the parking firm and demand that their data is changed to ensure the correct address for service of any letters or court claim (the latter not being ignored, of course).

Mr_Picklehead

My relative has received a LBC. There is an option to "[complete] the online Reply Form" or to "request a paper version" if "you believe you have a valid reason for non-payment". This they state can be done "in pursuant of Paragraph 4 of the PAP for Debt Claims under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.


In addition, they are now claiming an amount of £160. £100 for the alleged parking contract contravention, with an added £60 "claimed by our Client for the time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge. The amount is a pre-determined and nominal contributon to our Client's losses as a direct result of your non-payment".


Would general advice here be to write to the solicitors rather than using the online Reply Form - and to use information and suggested responses provided in other threads (particularly those pointing out their is no keeper liability in this case)?

KeithP

There is good guidance on how to robustly respond to a Letter Before Claim in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

beamerguy

Mr_Picklehead wrote: »

In addition, they are now claiming an amount of £160. £100 for the alleged parking contract contravention, with an added £60 "claimed by our Client for the time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge. The amount is a pre-determined and nominal contributon to our Client's losses as a direct result of your non-payment".

You are being scammed with the added £60

Could not see it in this thread but who were the debt collectors ?

Mr_Picklehead

There weren't any debt collectors. They didn't bother trying it on in the end... Went straight from HX PCM to Gladstones Solicitors!!

beamerguy

Mr_Picklehead wrote: »

There weren't any debt collectors. They didn't bother trying it on in the end... Went straight from HX PCM to Gladstones Solicitors!!

Then, they are not entitled to £60 all to themselves

All they can do is claim the base price of the ticket
plus court fees and legal fees which are capped anyway

So, the Gladstones boys, pinky and perky are trying it on
yet again ...... such an incompetent bunch

Any legal quoting "Elliot v Locke" is raving bonkers but ..... that
is Gladstones for you