Ignored from day 1

Coupon-mad

They will press ahead anyway. Except CEL normally file their own claims because they have an ex-Wonga legal guy, dontcha know!

MothballsWallet

An "ex-Wonga legal guy", C-m? Doesn't that mean that the incompetence level is

(Why, oh why doesn't this forum software let you resize an image by clicking & dragging on a corner???? Vanilla sucks.)

Coupon-mad

At least he tells the truth on his LinkedIn page about his employment history.  Unlike someone I know connected to the parking world who has lied about everything except their current position.

apeshifter

Been a while but finally got a conclusion to the complaint. They seem to think because the PCN was sent to me and I didnt appeal or identify the driver I am liable. Am I reading that right... 
It states on the bottom of the PCN it is the drivers responsibility to pay the PCN

Complaint Final Response

 

We write further to our previous correspondence regarding your complaint and can confirm that we are now in a position to provide you with our final response.

 

We received your telephone call on 14th May 2020, expressing your dissatisfaction for the following reason:

 

• QDR Solicitors and ZZPS Limited are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, due to the additional charges applied.
• You have not received clear evidence of the Parking Charge Notice.
• Non-compliant letters issued.

 

Investigation

 

Having reviewed our files and to provide some context, we can confirm that this matter was transferred to us from our client, ZZPS Limited on 07th May 2020.  

 

We were instructed to contact you regarding an outstanding balance of £182.00, which is related to a parking contravention which occurred on  January 2020, where ‘Maximum 60 Minutes Free Parking’. This incident occurred at the following parking site which is operated by Civil Enforcement Limited:

 

 

The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras that are used to correlate against the vehicle registration number to validate whether a payment or the duration of the allowed time was exceeded. It is imperative that the vehicle details are entered correctly at the time the vehicle entered the car park, as the system will not recognise a payment or vehicle registration made with errors.

We have noted your comments advising that on the date of the contravention you were working in another town, therefore you would not of been the driver of the vehicle at the time.

We understand that you believe that this Parking Charge Notice was not served to you under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA). However, when you did receive the initial Parking Charge Notice, you had an opportunity to appeal, pay the charge or inform the operator of the driver’s details within the time stipulated and resolve the matter directly with them.

 

We confirm we are not mandated to transfer liability to the driver, as it is only the car park operator who can consider this, had the request been made to them in time.

Our clients have reasonable cause to believe the parking event on the day breached their parking terms and conditions and that you remain liable to this Parking Charge Notice.

 

Our clients have confirmed that all evidence would have been provided to you upon the issuance of this notice. Our clients reserve the right to produce any further evidence in case of litigation activities.

 

Additional charges have been applied in line with the terms and conditions of the car park, this was outlined through the signage at the location.

 

Please see below a breakdown of the Parking Charge Notice balance:

 

Initial PCN from the car park operator:    £100.00

Recovery and late payment charges:      £82.00

 

Total Payable:                                      £182.00

 

You may have had the opportunity to pay a reduced balance, which would have been identified in the initial notice, within a certain timeframe.  

 

We are unable to comment further on the signage and the terms and conditions of the car park.

 

Our clients have confirmed that the vehicle breached the terms and conditions of the car park and therefore the above Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly.

 

Please be assured that our correspondence or contact has never been intended to be threatening or cause any distress. Our contact only seeks to notify you of the possible consequences of non-payment, so that you may make an informed decision regarding this matter, as we are obligated to follow regulations set out by the SRA and the FCA.

 

The letters issued do not constitute a Letter Before Action, as you appreciate our clients endeavour to resolve the matter, without the need for further actions. They therefore inform you of the possible consequences of a CCJ so that you may make an informed decision regarding payment of the Parking Charge Notice and so that you can understand the implications of legal action.

 

Conclusion

 

Taking into consideration the explanation we have given, we have not upheld your complaint, as we believe the correct process was followed.

 

Your file will remain on hold for 14 day to allow time to arrange payment of the above balance. Failure to make payment may result in further actions and additional costs.

 

We trust this clarifies our position and that you are satisfied with our explanation. If you remain dissatisfied with our response you may also refer the matter to the Credit Services Association (CSA), who can act as a mediator in resolving the matter. Their contact details are as follows:

 

Credit Service Association

2 Esh Plaza

Sir Bobby Robson Way

Great Park

Newcastle Upon Tyne

NE13 9BA

Web:    www.csa-uk.com

Tel:       0191 2170775

Coupon-mad

Complain to the CSA then, but with CLEAR info as to whether the PCN was in fact a non-POFA one and how that can be identified and what that means in terms of lack of keeper liability.

apeshifter

Done my complaint to CSA. See what happens next. Just out of curiosity QDR claim that their client is ZZPS. The initial PCN was received from Civil Enforcement Limited (where at the bottom it clearly states "it is the drivers responsibility to pay this PCN, if you were not the driver you can give us details blah blah").
Surely if they are acting on behalf ZZPS court is not an option as a debt company cannot take a person to court, only the issuer of the initial charge? That is what I have read anyway?
Would it be worth going to ZZPS for an SAR (never got one off CEL due to a dud email address). They claim I have received all evidence relating to the PCN but I have literally had PCN's and that is it. No photographs, ANPR logs, nothing to prove that I could of been the driver on that day, which I was not, nor that the vehicle was there in the first place.   

nosferatu1001

It depends on what powers ZZPS have been given by CEL. 
Write to CEL for a SAR Then! dont let a dud email stop you
no point with ZZPS. 

Coupon-mad

ZZPS can't litigate because they are not the creditor.  This is standard from ZZPS/QDR and a court claim from them does NOT follow this series of letters. 

CEL issue their own claims (for a sneak preview, search the forum for 'Wonga-man').

Le_Kirk

apeshifter said:

Would it be worth going to ZZPS for an SAR (never got one off CEL due to a dud email address.

These have variously been reported as good for CEL: -

office@ce-service.co.uk
Legal3@ce-service.co.uk
dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk.

............. and for ZZPS try: -
dataprotection@zzps.co.uk

apeshifter

Just been editing my CSA complaint. I have done the linking the points to their code of conduct. If someone has the time could you take a read and see if you think it sounds OK. I have tried to focus on the lack of evidence that I was the driver (as I was not) and the PCN's statement that the driver is responsible for payment as well as QDR's general conduct. I will grammar check it before sending.

Background: I previously received a PCN from Civil Enforcement Limited. This PCN was addressed to me, the keeper of the vehicle in question but clearly at the bottom of the PCN it stated "It is the drivers responsibility to pay this PCN".
 The PCN I received had not followed POFA 2012 therefore liability is not able to be transferred to the keeper. I also received no clear evidence to justify that I was the driver at that time, which I was not, and have evidence to corroborate this.
 Due to this, the debt was passed to ZZPS Limited and from them to QDR Solicitors.

 Complaint: I received a letter from QDR Solicitors on the 11th of May 2020. In this letter they stated the following: (usual we will obtain a CCJ against you)
I complained to QDR (14th May 2020) firstly in relation to this statement as a CCJ is not just obtained. As series of outcomes must occur before a CCJ can be registered against me, including a court hearing, me losing the judgement and further refusing to pay after being instructed to do so by a judge. It is my view that QDR has acted in terrorem of consumers and has breached the basic 'clear fair and not misleading' FCA rule and their general requirements.

 Furthermore I stated, in my letter of complaint, that I wish they make no more demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid (FCA Source book 7.5.3). In response to this on the 8th of July, in an E-mail, they stated: "Our clients have confirmed that all evidence would have been provided to you upon the issuance of this notice. Our clients reserve the right to produce any further evidence in case of litigation activities"

 As stated previously, I have not received any clear evidence to prove that the vehicle was even at the site, let alone that I was the driver at that time. The only 'evidence' I have received is a template PCN with my vehicle details entered and the alleged date of the contravention. No photos, no ANPR logs or anything else that places my vehicle or myself at the scene. QDR have taken their clients word that I have received such evidence and has proceeded again to demand payment in breach of FCA Source book section 7.5.3. (A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or 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)

 QDR state their client, in each correspondence, as ZZPS. This is not the creditor. It is my understanding that ZZPS cannot file for litigation as they are an instructed 3rd party. Essentially a debt collection agency. It must be the creditor who instructs formal proceedings should that be their wish. QDR also stated in the same Email:
 "We confirm we are not mandated to transfer liability to the driver, as it is only the car park operator who can consider this, had the request been made to them in time"

  As per the initial PCN the liability IS with the driver, not the keeper as it stated clearly at the bottom of the page "it is the drivers responsibility to pay this PCN", rendering this statement irrelevant in regards to my initial request of requesting proof that I was the driver at that time and therefore liable to pay.

 Finally, I requested a breakdown of the charges as the amount requested has been increased in 3 increments. £100 inital PCN, ZZPS £170, QDR £182. My Email stated:
"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)?"

 QDR stated the breakdown as follows.
Initial PCN from the car park operator: £100
Recovery and late payment charges: £82.00
 Total Payable: £182

 As previously stated the amount initially was £100. When ZZPS was instructed the amount requested was £170. When it was transferred to QDR the amount increased again to £182. 
Within the CSA Codes of practice Section 2. Key Requirements it states:
   i. Inform their clients of the true rates of charges for services rendered

 I do not believe this has been followed as the £82 listed as "recovery and late payment" has not been properly defined. Given that the balance due at ZZPS stage was £170 and at QDR stage £182 this suggests to me that QDR have added £12 onto the amount payable with no prior notice or definition. In addition I requested to know who had added the additional £82 and what the £100 represented. Neither of these enquiries were answered. The response email stated that the complaint was not upheld and finished with
"Your file will remain on hold for 14 day to allow time to arrange payment of the above balance. Failure to make payment may result in further actions and additional costs "