Accidental underpayment (pence) now at LBC stage

twhitehousescat

I am going to suggest MEDIATION on this one , not a method we often suggest , but bringing to the mediators attention the amount (1/2 packet of mints) may just embarrass the parking co

the findings of the mediator , if favourable may assist you in court

beamerguy

kube wrote: »

Actually it turns out it was £24,500! Exact wording copied from DCA letter (warts and all):
A bit of research showed that it was a completely different situation (serial offender, over 200 offences, believed tickets were unenforceable.) But of course the DCA's intention is not to present facts but to quote a high figure in order to instil fear. It worked, to some extent - my relative was shocked and said to me "I can't afford £25,000! Shouldn't I just pay them the £179 now?" I reassured them, pointed out the irrelevance of the case and the dirty underhand tactic being used.

News reports of the case can be found via googling "24500 parking fine" (as a new user I can't post links!)

We call it the Carly case and I understand that she went bankrupt so
Excel (VCS) with their greed ended up with a fart

BUT, such aggressive behaviour by Excel to you, when you are protected
by laws must be taken further

READ THIS

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)

This is one for your local Trading Standards

The_Deep

It is not an offence, it is an invoice for alleged damages caused by an alleged breach of an alleged contract, and if this was a Local Authority penalty I am sure they would cancel, see MC 1 [url]

https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/car_parks_and_parking/penalty_charges/how_to_appeal_against_a_pcn/mitigating_circumstances.aspx[/url]

Surely legal action would be a waste of Court time, an abuse of process, de minimis. If they lost surely they would open themselves to a claim for "unreasonable behaviour" costs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

I cannot believe that they would be reckless enough to try this in court, and it is precisely why Parliament is try to close these scanmmer down.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. Ae Bill to this effect has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

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. nb

kube

Thanks all. Yeah I guessed you'd be familiar with that case!

I hadn't looked at these letters for a long time - I now see another example of this aggressive behaviour in the letter that same DebtCollectionAgent sent ~2 weeks previously (emphasis mine):

Failure to ACT TODAY by contacting <DCA> to make payment will result in <DCA> seeking approval from our client for passing your account to a Doorstep Collection Agent

As I understand it there is no way they can send someone to your house, so this is another example of awful threatening behaviour?!

How would I go the mediation route?

I'm also aware the LBC clock is ticking, so presumably I should get the ball rolling on the SAR etc? Also will I need to do 2 SARs - one related to me (who has done all the correspondence) and another for the family member?

FWIW it's not Excel in my case. I won't say who it is as I'm aware they read these threads.

twhitehousescat

there's a bloke on the next street to me , he used to work for DRP , last time I looked , he had 47 doorsteps in his garden



PS , doorstep collection sounds like TNC

kube

10 points to you, DCA is TNC.


Amusingly I note that they added a £79 charge to the original PCN (for sending 2 boilerplate threatening letters?!), but BW Legal have added £60. So the amount being asked for has actually gone down in the intervening months!

twhitehousescat

ok TNC are lowlife , lowlife that work for the dregs of society (PPC,s)

of you go to there website , they clearly state "no win no fee" , well as they are losing and you have not paid them then its a no win and no fee

was the NTK sent to you in a timely manner , as TNC have DVLA access and have been known to access data from DVLA using DC rules

trisontana

twhitehousescat wrote: »

there's a bloke on the next street to me , he used to work for DRP , last time I looked , he had 47 doorsteps in his garden



PS , doorstep collection sounds like TNC

As opposed to a "field collection agent. I was wondering what had happened to the fields near me which keep disappearing. He's got them.

kube

Ok as per Newbies post 2 I am writing the SAR and the email to BW Legal stating that the SAR has been sent and requesting a restriction of data processing and the case should be put 'on hold'. I'm pretty sure I'll get their standard response refusing this request.

So what next, wait for actual court claim?

was the NTK sent to you in a timely manner

Perhaps a mistake, but I assumed that if I write in with the appeal first before hearing from them then it might save them money looking up keeper details via DVLA, and this in turn might make them more likely to accept the appeal. How stupid and naïve I was! So the first correspondence the relative received was the appeal rejection letter. TBH I don't think an NTK was ever received!

Coupon-mad

Do you mean you wrote in before any PCN at all, or that there was one on the windscreen?

Did you write as the relative, in their name? Are they the keeper? Are they the driver?