Ignored from day 1

apeshifter

Sorry about posting on the newbie thread. Accident as I have it bookmarked for quick reference
 

apeshifter

Sent an SAR and got this back. The email was from the privacy policy. Is a it evenr a real email address or is it just for show? Looks like I will have to do it in writing 🙄
dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk

Umkomaas

'There was a temporary problem delivering your message ......'

Maybe there is a temporary problem. 

D_P_Dance

Occam's razor?

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

Occam's razor?

You're sharp this morning DPD! 😊

apeshifter

Here is the latest. Another scare tactic I assume. Never managed to get an SAR accepted by the email and used multiple accounts (gmail/hotmail) so not the server being rejected.

Coupon-mad

Report them to the CSA and the SRA for misleading letters ''look to obtain a CCJ'' is so misleading an none of those thong can happen unless a court finds against you first and then you refused to pay what the court said!  Not clear, is it?

Write to QDR as follows:

Dear Sirs, 

re Civil Enforcement PCN ref xxxxxxxxxxxx

I have received your letter dated 11/5/2020 and I now intend to report QDR to the Credit Service Association ('CSA') and Solicitors Regulation Authority ('SRA').  Parking firm robo-claim solicitors are reportedly being investigated this year by the SRA and it is my position, even at pre-litigation stage, that QDR should be one of them.

Breach of debt collection rules - complaint to the CSA and SRA about QDR

Re: 
(a) The Credit Service Association (CSA) Code of Practice ('the CSA CoP'):
https://cdn.ymaws.com/csa-uk.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/docs/code_of_practice/code_of_practice.pdf
and
(b) the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) Consumer Credit sourcebook (May 2020 source 50):

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC.pdf 

Both include mandatory rules and principles which QDR has breached with your letters.  Even when acting in pursuit of an alleged debt, you are bound by your duties as a firm of solicitors, and your conduct puts you in breach of the StaRs (the standards required by the Solicitors Regulation Authority).

It is noted that your letters say that you are members of the CSA  - who are in turn regulated by the FCA - therefore it is my position that your conduct is bound by the CSA CoP and/or the FCA Sourcebook rules.  By listing alarmist outcomes yet not making it clear that your clients can't just ''look to obtain'' a CCJ, QDR is acting in terrorem of consumers and has breached the basic 'clear fair and not misleading' FCA rule and their general requirements, including:

"A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid." 7.5.3

"A firm must suspend any steps it takes or its agent takes in the recovery of a debt from a customer where the customer disputes the debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds." 7.14.1

CSA members must comply with the rules and principles, including dealing properly with complaints and disputes and not not using wording which could be considered as aggressive, threatening or misleading.  Stating that your client will ''look to obtain'' a CCJ is ridiculously misleading, but then you follow that sentence with a list of four horrific and damaging actions, none of which can happen without a claim being filed using the small claims track, your client first winning at a hearing (because I will defend), and then the Defendant still not paying after judgment.  Clearly none of that is true or likely and cannot be ''obtained'' just like that.

Your letter breaches all standards by which QDR is bound.  Further, you and your client are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 by your/their abuse of process by adding unrecoverable sums to the 'parking charge' in a clear attempt at double recovery. 

Who has added the extra £82, QDR or Civil Enforcement?  What is it for (breakdown and explanation required).  Secondly, what does the £100 represent (breakdown required)?

The alleged debt is disputed and denied and the reasons are as follows:

1.  Civil Enforcement cannot hold a registered keeper liable due to their choice not to use the POFA 2012.  On what basis then, are your clients attempting to drag me to court after all this time, with no evidence, no liability and no cause of action?
2. (explain the other points of defence without saying who was driving...unless you already blew that earlier...no saying ''I'' or ''me'' about the parking or signs!)

yours faithfully,

apeshifter

Brilliant. Will get it in the post tomorrow orTor do you think an email would be fine? No admission to the driver has been made as no contact has been made with anyone from day 1.

Coupon-mad

Email is better and free.

apeshifter

Understood. It will arrive with them this evening