How many DCA's are PPC Bottom Feeders?

ashley_cohen

I have a number of NTK's issued by ZZPS in behalf of tinpot little BPA companies - ZZPS provide the back office for a lot of the small fish. This includes All Parking Services, against whom I had a POPLA win today - they didn't contest. I believe APS are suspended by the BPA right now anyway.

I haven't (yet) had one from ZZPS for an IPC company, but i'm reliably informed they do Back Office for CPMS amongst others.

beamerguy

ashley_cohen wrote: »

I have a number of NTK's issued by ZZPS in behalf of tinpot little BPA companies - ZZPS provide the back office for a lot of the small fish. This includes All Parking Services, against whom I had a POPLA win today - they didn't contest. I believe APS are suspended by the BPA right now anyway.

I haven't (yet) had one from ZZPS for an IPC company, but i'm reliably informed they do Back Office for CPMS amongst others.

Well I guess we would all love to see a NTK issued by ZZPS

What is confusing you ?

ashley_cohen

Well, I'm looking at one right now, issued by PCN Admin centre, a trading name of ZZPS Ltd.

Second time today I'm producing something that people say doesn't exist...

https://ibb.co/j530bt1

Note that the document says "notice to keeper" at the top and confirms it's from ZZPS at the bottom.

twhitehousescat

ashley_cohen wrote: »

Well, I'm looking at one right now, issued by PCN Admin centre, a trading name of ZZPS Ltd.

I'll redact it and put it up shortly.

Second time today I'm producing something that people say doesn't exist...

back office , issued "on behalf" of parking co

ashley_cohen

Still issued BY ZZPS, as can be seen clearly on the document.

twhitehousescat

Back office !!!!!!

ashley_cohen

No, that's different,

The document says that ZZPS themselves are ATA members, complying with a code of practice. This document is produced by ZZPS, in ZZPS name, not in APS name.

Entirely different to the ParkingEye back office, where they outsource mail but the documents still come from PE.

twhitehousescat

yes zzps are ATA members

APS are also ATA members

beamerguy

ashley_cohen wrote: »

No, that's different,

The document says that ZZPS themselves are ATA members, complying with a code of practice. This document is produced by ZZPS, in ZZPS name, not in APS name.

Entirely different to the ParkingEye back office, where they outsource mail but the documents still come from PE.

upload it, let us see

KeithP

Earlier you wrote:

ashley_cohen wrote: »

we'l see when they reply to my response to them:

Please also note that as you are an ATA member of the International Parking Community, it is a breach of your ATA Code of Practice, section 22.2, for your client to “sell” or otherwise assign the right to collect the debt to a third party such as yourselves, and it is a similar breach for you to seek to buy such debts. As such, to avoid a formal complaint against both your client and yourselves, you must confirm within seven days that you have notified them that you cannot proceed with this matter and have returned the matter to your client.

This is a station car park, a BPA member company, and has a month to time out...

But you appear to have missed this part of my following post:

KeithP wrote: »

No, para 22.2 of the current IPC CoP says:

22.2 Operators cannot sell the Parking Charge to a third-party company

That is 22.2 in its entirety.

Where did you get "or otherwise assign the right to collect the debt to a third party" from?