Voyeurmse: DCBLegal Autosec DelGrosso

patient_dream

95Rollers said:

patient_dream said:

Voyeurmse said:

patient_dream

As suggested, will DCBL continue given the Autosec cases are very shaky and on top of that DCBL are faking it by adding £70. 
DCBL should forget all about Autosec, they will end up with more egg on their face

It was the first debt collectors that added the £70 on, not dcbl.  

Strange that on Autosec payment page it states £179!
dcbl as yet haven’t added anything. 

Yes ... but as debt collectors offer a no win no fee, there is no £70 added when they pass it back to the PPC. It is the PPC who instruct the legal and adds the £70 they NEVER paid.
It is a fraudulent attempt by the PPC ?
Firms like DCBL accept their instructions without question and should request the PPC for proof that they paid the debt collector.

DCBL and the other legals claim an amount that is pure fiction. Thereafter they sign a statement of truth ?

If you look at the DCBL group thread, they were claiming damages to account for the fake add on.  

DCBL letters ... forum group thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread#latest


Did the PPC claim for damages when instructing DCBL ?  
The word DAMAGES is not part of either code of practice.  The only add on in each code of practice refers to £60 debt collection and  that can only happen if the PPC actually paid a debt collector.  Can they prove this and if asked will they also show fake proof

As we know, judges normally deduct the fake add-on but what is needed is a judge to apply the law regarding "statements of truth" that are false
 

I put in an SAR to DCBL legal asking a breakdown of who added this sum, what the additional £60 was for and where was the legal authorisation- they told me it was "admin/ debt recovery fees" added on by them I accordance with aurhority from BPA !!!   They also confirm that they do buy debts from parking companies!  So where are the costs!?!  Plus there is no mention of these terms on the PPCs parking signs either.

Total fiction as you pointed out.  

Do you have that in writing ?
Do the DVLA know this ? if not they should as it is not allowed without express permission from them.  

As far as DCBL saying..... "authority from the BPA", the BPA are NOT an authority, nor is the IPC.  Both ATA's provide codes of practice which is only for their members, it is not a legal authority and has nothing to do with a motorist.

DCBL should wake up their ideas

So, DCBL say they add the fake amount ... worth pointing out to a judge considering they claim the amount is true by signing a statement of truth

95Rollers

patient_dream said:

95Rollers said:

patient_dream said:

Voyeurmse said:

patient_dream

As suggested, will DCBL continue given the Autosec cases are very shaky and on top of that DCBL are faking it by adding £70. 
DCBL should forget all about Autosec, they will end up with more egg on their face

It was the first debt collectors that added the £70 on, not dcbl.  

Strange that on Autosec payment page it states £179!
dcbl as yet haven’t added anything. 

Yes ... but as debt collectors offer a no win no fee, there is no £70 added when they pass it back to the PPC. It is the PPC who instruct the legal and adds the £70 they NEVER paid.
It is a fraudulent attempt by the PPC ?
Firms like DCBL accept their instructions without question and should request the PPC for proof that they paid the debt collector.

DCBL and the other legals claim an amount that is pure fiction. Thereafter they sign a statement of truth ?

If you look at the DCBL group thread, they were claiming damages to account for the fake add on.  

DCBL letters ... forum group thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread#latest


Did the PPC claim for damages when instructing DCBL ?  
The word DAMAGES is not part of either code of practice.  The only add on in each code of practice refers to £60 debt collection and  that can only happen if the PPC actually paid a debt collector.  Can they prove this and if asked will they also show fake proof

As we know, judges normally deduct the fake add-on but what is needed is a judge to apply the law regarding "statements of truth" that are false
 

I put in an SAR to DCBL legal asking a breakdown of who added this sum, what the additional £60 was for and where was the legal authorisation- they told me it was "admin/ debt recovery fees" added on by them I accordance with aurhority from BPA !!!   They also confirm that they do buy debts from parking companies!  So where are the costs!?!  Plus there is no mention of these terms on the PPCs parking signs either.

Total fiction as you pointed out.  

Do you have that in writing ?
Do the DVLA know this ? if not they should as it is not allowed without express permission from them.  

As far as DCBL saying..... "authority from the BPA", the BPA are NOT an authority, nor is the IPC.  Both ATA's provide codes of practice which is only for their members, it is not a legal authority and has nothing to do with a motorist.

DCBL should wake up their ideas

So, DCBL say they add the fake amount ... worth pointing out to a judge considering they claim the amount is true by signing a statement of truth

Yes I do.  It was my SAR to DCBL collection agency.  I can send it over/ upload - buy will need to redact the original if it as I'm out at the moment and will need laptop access.

But the answer to my question says:

* DCBL added a £60.00 debt recovery charge when DCBL were appointed by ******** Parking Ltd to collect the unpaid parking charge. Please note, the recovery charge was set by the British Parking Association and was therefore applied correctly.

Umkomaas

Please note, the recovery charge was set by the British Parking Association and was therefore applied correctly.

I understand that most Judges believe it to have been applied unlawfully!

patient_dream

95Rollers said:

patient_dream said:

95Rollers said:

patient_dream said:

Voyeurmse said:

patient_dream

As suggested, will DCBL continue given the Autosec cases are very shaky and on top of that DCBL are faking it by adding £70. 
DCBL should forget all about Autosec, they will end up with more egg on their face

It was the first debt collectors that added the £70 on, not dcbl.  

Strange that on Autosec payment page it states £179!
dcbl as yet haven’t added anything. 

Yes ... but as debt collectors offer a no win no fee, there is no £70 added when they pass it back to the PPC. It is the PPC who instruct the legal and adds the £70 they NEVER paid.
It is a fraudulent attempt by the PPC ?
Firms like DCBL accept their instructions without question and should request the PPC for proof that they paid the debt collector.

DCBL and the other legals claim an amount that is pure fiction. Thereafter they sign a statement of truth ?

If you look at the DCBL group thread, they were claiming damages to account for the fake add on.  

DCBL letters ... forum group thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread#latest


Did the PPC claim for damages when instructing DCBL ?  
The word DAMAGES is not part of either code of practice.  The only add on in each code of practice refers to £60 debt collection and  that can only happen if the PPC actually paid a debt collector.  Can they prove this and if asked will they also show fake proof

As we know, judges normally deduct the fake add-on but what is needed is a judge to apply the law regarding "statements of truth" that are false
 

I put in an SAR to DCBL legal asking a breakdown of who added this sum, what the additional £60 was for and where was the legal authorisation- they told me it was "admin/ debt recovery fees" added on by them I accordance with aurhority from BPA !!!   They also confirm that they do buy debts from parking companies!  So where are the costs!?!  Plus there is no mention of these terms on the PPCs parking signs either.

Total fiction as you pointed out.  

Do you have that in writing ?
Do the DVLA know this ? if not they should as it is not allowed without express permission from them.  

As far as DCBL saying..... "authority from the BPA", the BPA are NOT an authority, nor is the IPC.  Both ATA's provide codes of practice which is only for their members, it is not a legal authority and has nothing to do with a motorist.

DCBL should wake up their ideas

So, DCBL say they add the fake amount ... worth pointing out to a judge considering they claim the amount is true by signing a statement of truth

Yes I do.  It was my SAR to DCBL collection agency.  I can send it over/ upload - buy will need to redact the original if it as I'm out at the moment and will need laptop access.

But the answer to my question says:

* DCBL added a £60.00 debt recovery charge when DCBL were appointed by ******** Parking Ltd to collect the unpaid parking charge. Please note, the recovery charge was set by the British Parking Association and was therefore applied correctly.

DCBL are going in ever decreasig circles ?  The BPA code of practice says that parking companies can add £60 
That can only be applicable if the PPC was actually charged by the debt collector.

DCBL is not a parking company and just like the motorist, the code of practice has nothing to do with them.  It is the parking company who must instruct DCBL with an amount owed and if that includes £60, they must prove it.

A third party adding amounts ad-lib is not part of the code of practice

Castle

patient_dream said:

DCBL are going in ever decreasig circles ?  The BPA code of practice says that parking companies can add £60 
That can only be applicable if the PPC was actually charged by the debt collector.

DCBL is not a parking company and just like the motorist, the code of practice has nothing to do with them.  It is the parking company who must instruct DCBL with an amount owed and if that includes £60, they must prove it.

A third party adding amounts ad-lib is not part of the code of practice

For what it's worth, the BPA's code allows £70, not £60.

patient_dream

Castle said:

patient_dream said:

DCBL are going in ever decreasig circles ?  The BPA code of practice says that parking companies can add £60 
That can only be applicable if the PPC was actually charged by the debt collector.

DCBL is not a parking company and just like the motorist, the code of practice has nothing to do with them.  It is the parking company who must instruct DCBL with an amount owed and if that includes £60, they must prove it.

A third party adding amounts ad-lib is not part of the code of practice

For what it's worth, the BPA's code allows £70, not £60.

The extra profit guys who drive standards upwards.
There are normally two jokers in a pack of cards, The BPA and IPC have grabbed both of them

95Rollers

It pretty much ties in with Gary Osner's quote which he said that he created the "admin/ debt recovery fee" to make money as he felt the original invoice amount on the PCN was too low using the normal debt recovery model (where a percentage is taken) or the debt is bought. So they are basically operating on a no win no fee basis where they generate additional fees to cover their cut and let the parking firm keep the ticket invoice amount.   I'm going to fire off another SAR asking DCBL for more clarity and ask them outright to deny it confirm the above. Plus a breakdown of the "admin" and "debt recovery " activities costed!  Once my case is done (soon I hope) I'll sanitise my personal info from it and publish it as a free resource/ evidence piece for everyone to share and use.

Voyeurmse

Surely if a debt recovery firm ‘buys’ a debt... it is no longer your debt, it now belongs to them?

KeithP

Voyeurmse said:

Surely if a debt recovery firm ‘buys’ a debt... it is no longer your debt, it now belongs to them?

Yes you are right... if that happened.

But that did not happen.

The debt recovery firm has been taken on by the parking company as a subcontractor.

The debt remains with the parking company.


Edited to add...

To clarify... there isn't even a debt at this stage... just an alleged debt.

Voyeurmse

patient_dream said:

Yes, a complaint to the ICO about the SAR.

As suggested, will DCBL continue given the Autosec cases are very shaky and on top of that DCBL are faking it by adding £70. 
DCBL should forget all about Autosec, they will end up with more egg on their face

The initial PCN was £100
TNC added £70
DCBLegal now chasing £170 (they didn’t add more)
Autosec’s (PCN) payment page/website states £179!

Can’t be admin charges as they don’t reply to anyone!  Nor do they have any employees.