DCBL advice?

Hollyjaka

Hi
I have recieved the exact same letter word for word and same amount too, very strage.
Came across you post looking for advice as it paniced me a bit as I wasn’t even aware of the tickets ( we have free work spaces) and im not sure how to respond. The letter is way out of date as it went yo my parents house... havnt lived there for years! !!!128556;

busby3000

Hollyjaka one thing it is important to do is tell them if you have moved. We did and I let them know. They have 7 yrs (I think) to chase tickets, and I didn!!!8217;t want to miss a possible court case being ruled in their favour because I didn!!!8217;t turn up. Not that NPS is litigious anyway.

Quentin

@hollyjacka

You first need to read up on this in the newbies FAQ thread to understand the game you are caught up in and where you are now ,

Then if you have further questions you must start your own thread and not post in others like this

busby3000

As suggested I emailed BPA to ask what was going on (sent to Steve Clark, picked up by someone else)- this was 7 August. They contacted them on my behalf, and said to allow 14 days for DCB legal to reply. I heard back today (27 Sept, slightly more than 14 days!) with the following:

"Thank you for your patience whilst we contacted Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited for further information in regards to your complaint.

Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited have responded to advise that the letter issued to you states that DCB Legal act on behalf of Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited in relation to the client’s matter and that the letters do not state or infer that Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited is the Claimant.

Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited inform us that they are able to instruct a solicitor, and in this case, have done so on behalf and under the instruction of their client (Northern Parking Services (North East) Ltd). I can see that the letter does not specify that the debt belongs to Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited.

As our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of our Code of Practice and I have not identified one during this investigation, I have now closed this case.

I hope that the above information is of assistance to you."

So it seems BPA can't help. Interesting that the reply is somewhat at odds with what beamerguy is saying!

twhitehousescat

busby3000 wrote: »

As suggested I emailed BPA to ask what was going on (sent to Steve Clark, picked up by someone else)- this was 7 August. They contacted them on my behalf, and said to allow 14 days for DCB legal to reply. I heard back today (27 Sept, slightly more than 14 days!) with the following:

"Thank you for your patience whilst we contacted Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited for further information in regards to your complaint.

Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited have responded to advise that the letter issued to you states that DCB Legal act on behalf of Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited in relation to the client’s matter and that the letters do not state or infer that Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited is the Claimant.

Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited inform us that they are able to instruct a solicitor, and in this case, have done so on behalf and under the instruction of their client (Northern Parking Services (North East) Ltd). I can see that the letter does not specify that the debt belongs to Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited.

As our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of our Code of Practice and I have not identified one during this investigation, I have now closed this case.

I hope that the above information is of assistance to you."

So it seems BPA can't help. Interesting that the reply is somewhat at odds with what beamerguy is saying!

more £$%^ %hit by the BPA Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited CANNOT instruct a solicitor, only the parking co can do that , DCBL in any guise CANNOT instruct anyone

beamerguy

busby3000

Did the BPA really send you this rubbish. ?????

STEVE CLARK (BPA) ..... Now is the time to tell
Sir Greg Knight that the BPA is not fit to be an ATA

Direct Collections Bailiffs can only instruct solicitors
if they purchased the so called debt and they are
not allowed to ... For god's sake the BPA know this ?

Who sent you this BPA rubbish ...... a name please

Collections Bailiffs Limited in relation to the client’s matter and that the letters do not state or infer that Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited is the Claimant.

Of course they don't, so why do they quote this rubbish ..

Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited inform us that they are able to instruct a solicitor, and in this case, have done so on behalf and under the instruction of their client (Northern Parking Services (North East) Ltd)

Who at the BPA sent you this rubbish ???

twhitehousescat

I think a letter to Mr clark complaining that the parking co have assigned the debt to DCBL ,

when he asks what proof you have , forward the crap they sent you (above) stating that the BPA are happy a debt collection Co are stating they have instructed solisitors

Umkomaas

Just wonder if bargepole, IamEmanresu, Johnersh or LoC123 (alphabetically ordered!) are available to comment on this? Would be helpful to get a professional view.

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas wrote: »

Just wonder if bargepole, IamEmanresu, Johnersh or LoC123 (alphabetically ordered!) are available to comment on this? Would be helpful to get a professional view.

Bump, I agree.

Is this DCBL letter - and the story they span to the BPA - in any way an offence, such as:

- impersonating a solicitor or inferring they are, given the wording?

- impersonating a bailiff or inferring they are, given the murky lines?

If not do we think it and the BPA's interpretation, suggests possible MIL-style 'debt assignment' without the DVLA being consulted & agreeing first? DVLA complaint needed next I think.

Also, how about the OP sends a SAR to DCBL asking for all the data held about them, any assignment and/or all shared information between the original PPC and DCBL.

And a list of all third parties, including but not limited to solicitors and the BPA and every other party with whom DCBL has shared the data (and copies of all such communications under the GDPR, within the relevant timescale).

Oh, and my bet is on Joanna or Zoe as the person who replied with that tripe.

[Deleted User]

FWIW I disagree with some of the foregoing, but the comments are sound in other respects.

1. I DISAGREE with the notion that only the PPC can instruct a solicitor. Anyone can instruct a solicitor to write a letter. That does not mean a case has merit of course. There is nothing to stop DCBL funding the PPCs litigation for them, if that is the dynamic here.

2. I AGREE that the claim if advanced under POFA cannot be assigned. The debt after a judgment was made potentially could be.

3. I have been unable to review the original. If the o/p has set out the letter verbatim, care has been taken to explain that the intended claimant is Indeed the PPC and the contract with them.

4. Subject to the caveat at 3 above, I AGREE that the LoC is non compliant. It only countenances payment, whereas of course the purpose of the protocols is to narrow the issues in dispute, which may include the provision of further information and negotiation. It appears to disregard the period of stocktake.