Popcorn Time advice needed on next steps

Shy_Ted_Utd

For the past 3 years I have been playing the usual letter ping pong with the PPC and their legal firm in relation to 2 invoices from late 2017
My argument from the onset that the driver never observed a windscreen ticket being placed on the vehicle and that the RK never received a NTK and first knowledge being the usual toilet paper from the debt company
Fast forward to Dec 2020 and on receipt of an LOC which after numerous requests came with copies of the original NTK with the usual blurb claiming RK liability and details obtained via DVLA and POFA etc.
Now for the interesting part.
Both NTK were sent to an address that the RK has never lived at or the vehicle has ever been registered to.
On receipt of the LOC I requested a 30 day debt advice delay which would give me until late Jan 2021 whilst I made enquiries with DVLA 
I have today received a response from DVLA who have confirmed that during the relevant period no requests have been made to obtain my details and confirmation that the vehicle in question has always been registered to my current address.
Cleary this evidences that their NTK was bull s#&t and lies.
My request is now the best course of actions to take I have kept all all correspondence and proof of postage ?
Thanks

BrownTrout

Which parking firm

Shy_Ted_Utd

No doubt you will be surprised to hear it’s an IPC firm UKPPO and Bw legal

Le_Kirk

How do you know about all this if the letters never went to your current address?  Did the legal firm used a tracing service?  Is the vehicle the correct one, i.e. do you own it?

beamerguy

This is leading up to another failure for BWLegal, we keep counting

I have today received a response from DVLA who have confirmed that during the relevant period no requests have been made to obtain my details and confirmation that the vehicle in question has always been registered to my current address.

So the question now is where did the PPC get the info from ??

Shy_Ted_Utd

My question is now do I wait to see if they issue a formal claim via MCOL and once I submit my defence re the above no doubt they will pull the case or head them off at the pass and respond to their LOC and get it squashed at source and raise complaints with the DVLA and IPC

nosferatu1001

I would
- respond to the LBC with the normal debt denied, then
- ask them where their client obtained your name and address from, in order to send the original NTK out. You require this as it narrows the issues under dispute
THEN
- if they come back saying "DVLA", you respond back with copy proof of the DVLA saying "no, they didnt" and ask them who they contend is lying - their client or the DVLA. 
- If they dont say DVLA, ask why they have broken their DVLA KADOE contract...

Shy_Ted_Utd

Thanks that sounds like a good starting point, I will fire a letter off over the weekend as per your first point with free proof of postage ,in it for the long haul and I will keep you updated

Jenni_D

Does the LOC say that all communications must be by mail? If an email reply is allowed then I'd suggest doing it that way - in these COVID times that would be the more responsible approach as it avoids leaving home for an unnecessary visit to the PO.

Fruitcake

You still haven't told us the name of the PPC.

Shy_Ted_Utd

As per post #3 it’s UKPPO ably mismanaged via BW Legal