capitol car park control (update) now with added hijack

blackdog2220

or give him 10 sanction points or even 12 sanction points , and actually ban the guy 
as the new company has a single director , by the same name and address would the sanction points reflect to him or not 

but having said that I suspect the BPA will do nothing 

anyone got the email of the new person (sarah?) who has taken over s clarkes role at BPA
anyone got an email of contact at DVLA , (assignment of claims)

nosferatu1001

The sanction points would be against the entity selling the debts on, however I reckon if the company is truly wound up (however that is legally) preventing someone from realising those assets would be tricky for the DVLA to do. 

blackdog2220

a sole trader is responsable for HIS actions in person till he dies (or maybe 6 yrs in case of civil case)  , not a case of ducking and diving , sole trader one day , "not me gov" next , followed by sole trader day after 
I would say he is still active as week speak , as a non BPA member due to number of cases being trought in T/A name 

reading info from companies house , a sole trader cant be "wound up" they are there , but not activly tading , IF THEY ARE STILL PAYING CORRECT TAX 

I seem to recall both the "selling" and buying" of assignment , were illigal as far as BPA/DVLA on BOTH parties 
Mr Smidz as a person that uses paper access at DVLA knew not only from the form , but also from BPA that passing of assignment was illigal 

in the MIL cases , the only reason MIL was not sanctioned was because they are not BPA , Capitol carpark control LTD ARE members of the BPA and have a different ICO number to the T/A , showing they are seperate entities 

blackdog2220

nosferatu1001 said:

The sanction points would be against the entity selling the debts on, however I reckon if the company is truly wound up (however that is legally) preventing someone from realising those assets would be tricky for the DVLA to do. 

they (t/A are not "wound up" they have multiple claims going to court in the name of t smitz T/a capitol carpark control 

nosferatu1001

Not illegal. At most unlawful, and even that would need testing in a court. The DVLA are highly unlikely to go that way, as they're not likely to get much for their time. 
And, again, private tax matters have naff all to do with this forum
The BPA and DVLA will not give two hoots, so unless you're going to find a way to make it relevant ,i'd stop doing anything with it. Waste of time. 

Coupon-mad

anyone got an email of contact at DVLA , (assignment of claims).

The DVLA will respond to a complaint if you use the email shown in post #5 of the NEWBIES. There is no 'name' to write to these days.

blackdog2220

thank you CM 

blackdog2220

Roll up roll up get your free whitewash here !

 We have been in dialogue with both Mr Szmidt and DCBL who have confirmed that there has been no debt assignment and no debt sale - you requested confirmation of the same and this has been supplied, it is our position that this element of your correspondence is now resolved.

You make a number of other allegations within your correspondence regarding some of the cases involving, and these have been shared with the operator and DCBL who have initiated a thorough review of all the cases and if any errors are identified, these will be rectified. 

we have discharged our obligations and will be closing the file on this matter as no breach of our Code of Practice has occurred. This concludes our correspondence with you on it.

the bpa , raising standards 

 

nosferatu1001

So, anyone getting a claiom form from the "ltd" company when it was the sole trader who was in place at the time, needs to tell the DVLA AND the BPA. 

blackdog2220

and these have been shared with the operator and DCBL who have initiated a thorough review of all the cases and if any errors are identified, these will be rectified. 

self healing anyone 
in this case that was clearly shown to them the Ltd company DID act , and got a ccj , the data was held by t smitz T/A capitol car park control 
the BPA have failed to act when THIS case was shown to them , in this case After trying to explole the person they have backed down and will actually pay for the setaside , no action will be taken by the BPA