DRP - £160 charge (not straightforward)

agc353

I have read the NEWBIES section, but I can't find anything which covers the particular circumstance of this case (apologies if I have missed something).

Anyway, my son is dealing with DRP regarding a Britannia parking notice.

I have only just become aware of the details, which I will list below:

The parking offence occurred on 7th July, for parking in a pub car park without obtaining a ticket from the machine.

Parking is operated by Britannia and the pub car park has ANPR cameras.

He did not receive the original PCN (or any follow-up correspondence) from Britannia as he had not updated his V5C following a house move earlier in the year (and hadn’t set-up mail forwarding).

Britannia then passed the case to DRP (date unknown).

DRP first contacted my son in early September. He ignored several of their letters, but then (foolishly) buckled (under the treat of possible court action) and called them. He was told that his failure to update his VC5 was an offence and that he could be fined by the DVLA. This added pressure worked and he agreed to pay the charge of £160 (Britannia of £60 + DRP of £100) in monthly instalments of £40. Unfortunately he gave them his debit card details and thus created a CPA.The first payment was taken on 2nd November.

With the next payment due any day, he would have to contact DRP immediately and instruct them to cancel the CPA in order to prevent the next £40 being taken.

My questions are:

1. Should he attempt to cancel the CPA and how should he responded to their likely questions/threats re cancelling the agreed payment schedule?

2. Is there a way that he could offer to pay another £20 (ie covering the original fine)? From what I’ve read on this forum, negotiating with DRP is not recommended. At this late stage, should he contact Britannia with that offer?

Any advice would be gratefully received.

Many thanks.

beamerguy

The same problem as this thread.

Read what's going on

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5917463/debt-recovery-plus-already-in-payment-plan

Fruitcake

Yes he could have been fined by the DVLA, but this has absolutely nothing to do with DRP or Britannia and they had no business suggesting not updating details with the DVLA would have any bearing on the alleged parking incident or alleged debt.
The problem now is that having acknowledged the debt and agreed to pay the scammers, he may be legally stuck.
If DRP have suggested or coerced your son into paying, then he may have some recourse and reason to stop making further payments. The risk is that DRP may try a court claim as a result.

You need better legal advice than most of us are probably able to give here, but there are a few legally qualified posters in this forum who may be able to offer help.

What a pity he agreed to pay anything as debt crawlers have absolutely zero powers.

It would however be worth challenging the extra £60 that DRP have added on.

Whatever else he does, your son should complain to his MP about this unregulated scam using the info from post 1 of the NEWBIES about the parliamentary debates and proposed parking bill.

beamerguy

Fruitcake wrote: »

The problem now is that having acknowledged the debt and agreed to pay the scammers, he may be legally stuck.
It would however be worth challenging the extra £60 that DRP have added on.

Whatever else he does, your son should complain to his MP about this unregulated scam using the info from post 1 of the NEWBIES about the parliamentary debates and proposed parking bill.

This sounds like another case of DRP fabricating and menacing
and misrepresentation which is classed as criminal

MISLEADING AND AGGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL PRACTICES
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721872/misleading-aggressive-commercial-practices-guidance.pdf

Part 1: Liability for misleading and aggressive
practices
The 2008 Regulations make misleading actions unlawful
(see regulation 5). An action by a trader is misleading if it
contains false information or if it is likely to mislead
the average consumer in its overall presentation.

Consumer payments and “civil recovery”
The Regulations amend the definition of a “transactional decision”
to expressly cover demands for payment from a consumer in full
or partial settlement of the consumer’s liabilities or purported
liabilities to the trader (see reg 2(1A) of the 2008 Regulations).
This means that misleading and aggressive practices in respect of
such demands would now clearly lead to both criminal sanctions
(under the 2008 Regulations)

Coupon-mad

Of course he cancels the arrangement. He needs to learn, you DO NOT pay scams.

agc353

Many thanks for the very helpful replies.

I am (and will be) following the thread suggested by beamerguy with great interest.

beamerguy

agc353 wrote: »

Many thanks for the very helpful replies.

I am (and will be) following the thread suggested by beamerguy with great interest.

Yes yours is the same. Cancel payments and reclaim from your bank

DRP threatened your son and put him under pressure to agree.
DRP would not have a clue if it went to court, that's up to the PPC to decide.
And they are not in a position to even suggest that to the PPC

As far as I am concerned DRP has failed ....
"Liability for misleading and aggressive practices"

The_Deep

Personally, I would risk them taking you to court and not pay them a penny more.

The so called debt is a parking invoice from a scammer, you are disputing it, and no judge has ruled whether it is valid or not.

Read what MPs think about tjese scammers.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.S

The DCA have mislead you and it was on that you agreed to enter into an arrangement with you. I very much doubt that a judge would agree that, in the circumstances, you had breached a contract.

Have you approached Trading Standards, they may be able to offer you advice.

The DCA may huff and ouff, bu I very much doubt that they would risk court,

leannemarie85

Hi i recently moved to a new area and parked in a shopping car park which stated in big letters it was free for the first two hours, so i was literally in and out of Argos and came back to a ticket. I didn't notice under the sign in smaller letters that i still had to print a ticket as i didn't have my glasses with me.
Anyway i explained that situation via email and didn't hear from them again until i received a letter in the post stating what was meant to be a £90 fine has now gone up to £150 as they'd been sending letters to my old address which i didn't know anything about or receive.
Now they are saying i will be taken to court unless i pay the full amount by early december. I have since emailed back explaining the situation which they didn't care about, even the fact that i have cancer (true story) so I've lost a lot of work and it would be impossible for me to pay that amount in one go, again they don't care. So i said the only thing i can afford is £10 a month and they are saying that only the full amount is due or i will be taken to court? Normally i would ignore them but I'm working so hard to get my credit good i cannot afford to get a cci. What can i do?

beamerguy

Hi, this thread belongs to another OP

We can help as long as you start your own thread and carefully read the NEWBIES thread

leannemarie85

Thank you. How do i start my own thread? I'm new to this and can't seem to find an option to start my own