Trace Recovery - 2 years on!?

Fruitcake

md9 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Because I am happy to assist anyone with an OPS claim and I speak in court for people in Horsham/Brighton/Worthing/Lewes against parking firm claimants for free.  Which location plase, of that car park?  Send me a pm if you prefer.

I won't link the NEWBIES thread or the template defence thread.  They are both announcements at the top of this forum and my signature tells people where the little link is at the top of any page, to hop back to page one (not on a phone please).

Thanks, the original car park was an NCP on Crawley Boulevard, East Crawley. 

Original documents from Trace etc say NCP so unsure as to why it’s OPS now... 

Are you sure you don't have two separate PCNs? There is no way that NCP would hand an invoice over to OPS. 
You need to go back to the beginning and check what is actually going on and then tell us.

md9

Nope, there have been no other PCN’s and no other documents or info regarding any and the cost/stage is the same. 

Here is the precious one from BW Legal, then the one from DCBLegal latest, before that it was the Trace ones. 

DCB Legal says 30 days to respond. 

md9

Previous* 

md9

Oh wow, I do apologise!! I’ve just seen at the bottom of the gumf on the back page that it IS a completely separate PCN for ‘Failing to display a Valid Permit’ somewhere in 2017!? !!!!!!? 

Ok, so that changes the dynamic I guess, what now? 

Apologies 🤦🏻‍♂️

Umkomaas

what now?

Clearly you need to deal with both separately. 

The NCP one is at the tedious debt collector stage, which can be ignored. If you're ever served with a formal Letter of Claim (giving you 30 days to respond) or a court claim via the Northampton CCBC for the NCP parking charge, come back on this thread. Reserve this thread exclusively for your NCP ticket.

The letter you've received for One Parking Solution (OPS) is a formal Letter of Claim (30 days response deadline is the giveaway), so that needs dealing with as per the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, second post. But will you please commence a new thread for your OPS charge as that is now very close to the business end of things. In your opening post on the new thread, please provide the background information and upload the correspondence you received/exchanged. Do not confuse the new thread with any cross reference to your NCP case. 

Coupon-mad

md9 said:

Oh wow, I do apologise!! I’ve just seen at the bottom of the gumf on the back page that it IS a completely separate PCN for ‘Failing to display a Valid Permit’ somewhere in 2017!? !!!!!!? 

Ok, so that changes the dynamic I guess, what now? 

Apologies 🤦🏻‍♂️

As we suspected.

Both are beatable. No panicking, no ringing them, but create two paper/plastic file or ring binders now and separate that paperwork and be ready for the next letters, keeping them in the separate files. 

You will probably get court claims = very winnable and fun!  No CCJ risk, nothing bad.  All good and the scams end.

Now, show us the letter about OPS please - pm it to me if you prefer.  I want to know the car park location and to see the letters about it (and any previous OPS letters too).  Send a SAR to OPS using the privacy page online, and using the words the NEWBIES thread gives you for a SAR, which tells you what that is and why it's useful (for both PCNs) at this pre-action stage.  Also, if some previous letters went to an old address, also take the chance to email both DPOs of NCP and OPS, to tell them to ERASE the old address from their records.

md9

No problem, I will not mention OPS one on this thread again and the NCP one remains where it previously was before I posted again yesterday, which I will continue to ignore, for now. 

Thanks again and sorry, my bad.

Coupon-mad

OK no worries, glad we got to the bottom of it.  I am happy to assist you with the OPS one.

Breaking news to the regulars here - Worthing Court has started to strike OPS cases out for abuse of process and an OP that myself and ParkingMad helped is about to update his thread with the Judgment or Order (no hearing needed, out it went, with the usual form of words copied from the Southampton case!).

Umkomaas

Breaking news to the regulars here - Worthing Court has started to strike OPS cases out for abuse of process and an OP that myself and ParkingMad helped is about to update his thread with the Judgment or Order (no hearing needed, out it went, with the usual form of words copied from the Southampton case!).

Good to know. But unless there's some sanction, I can't see anything to stop them issuing claims on the basis that the majority of recipients will be sufficiently traumatised by the court documentation to dive for their chequebooks.  

Although a bit wishful on my part, I wonder if the new Code of Practice will have some sanction element for vexatious/unjustifiable PPC Court claims?

Le_Kirk

Umkomaas said:

Breaking news to the regulars here - Worthing Court has started to strike OPS cases out for abuse of process and an OP that myself and ParkingMad helped is about to update his thread with the Judgment or Order (no hearing needed, out it went, with the usual form of words copied from the Southampton case!).

Good to know. But unless there's some sanction, I can't see anything to stop them issuing claims on the basis that the majority of recipients will be sufficiently traumatised by the court documentation to dive for their chequebooks.  

Although a bit wishful on my part, I wonder if the new Code of Practice will have some sanction element for vexatious/unjustifiable PPC Court claims?

Would be good to see but I don't see how there could be a sanction written into the code of practice unless it is a code of malpractice because surely it is for the courts to issue sanctions and they cannot do that until and unless the PPC has committed the abuse of process.