Debt collection letter ZZPS re PCN (Company car) No NTK ever received.

lola1411

Trying to sieve through to find some further advice. I see the advice is to ignore the debt collection letter completely. I would welcome any links that might apply as I am confused about what step to take next. For now certainly we will not respond in any way to the debt collection. 

Here's a summary 
No PCN  that we are aware of.
No NTK ever received. So this was the absolute first notice we had of any parking charge.
 
£100 plus £70 admin claimed. 

debt letter says issue date 16/11/2021 20.12pm  and event described as 'no payment' but no other times or information supplied eg entry/exit charge.
The debt collection letter was addressed to the 'company secretary' and mailed to the admin address which has only just been opened though the letter is dated 25th January. 

Creditor says -  'National Car Parks Limited.'

Typically they have used the line 'for your information a supreme court ruling (parkingeye v Beavis) has confirmed that a parking charge issued on private land is enforceable'

I have used this forum before for private tickets and won! but not for a company car and particularly where there was never a NTK sent. 
Thank you 

D_P_Dance

I would welcome any links that might apply 

Read the newbies and complain to your MP

£100 plus £70 admin claimed. 

They hav added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount of £70 for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also this,

"Abuse of process – the quantum

13. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-04). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued."

Fruitcake

It is imperative that the driver's identity is not revealed.

Debt collectors have no powers and can safely be ignored. The fourth post of the NEWBIES explains why.

The registered keeper should send an SAR as per the NEWBIES to the PPC. They will need to include proof of ID.
This should flush out any NTD if there was one, and the NTK. 
They should also complain to the PPC and the BPA that NCP have engaged a debt collector when no NTK has been given.

If the registered keeper is a company, then an officer of the company (Company Secretary or Director) or a Fleet Manager if there is one will need to deal with this.

The day to day keeper may become involved at a later date if the registered keeper transfers liability.

lola1411

Many thanks both for the great links and advice. We will not be responding to ZZPS.

We were wondering if we should just wait a bit longer to see if it is escalated and then send the SAR? That might drag out the issue past the 6 month period.

If we do get a letter ahead of Court action then reading the info here we would have to be given 30 days to respond as you point out that 14 days (or less than 30) does not meet the legal requirement.

On that basis am I right in thinking that if we do not now hear before 17th April would they have run out of time to pursue the charge anyway?

 Incident date specified was 16th Nov 2021. Easier to drag it out if we can so that the statute time limit passes? If they pursue we  can request the SAR to see if they ever even sent a NTK and will use the 'double recovery' statements in our response.

Jenni_D

If the incident date was 16-11-21 then they have until 15-11-27 to pursue this via court (per the Limitations Act, and assuming this was in England or Wales).

Fruitcake

I'm not sure where you got a six months time limit from, unless byelaws apply. 

I suggest you send the SAR asap. That way if a LBC and then a Court Claim arrive, whoever is dealing with it will have already been able to complain to the landowner and have done research to obtain photos of the site and signage, and to see whether the NTK was or wasn't PoFA compliant.

lola1411

An update on this. I sent the SAR on 18th March and they tried to get me to send photo id. I replied with the following which might be useful to anyone else wanting to avoid sending in passport photo etc.

'We do not provide photo ID unless it is required to visually compare and identify in the presence of that person the likeness in the photo. In this case as there is no requirement/possibility of validating likeness, I am enclosing a passport page without the photographic image. Should you be able to explain why you require photo id and how you would verify, please let us know.' 

Yesterday (a few days before the month expiry) they sent back photos of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park. They sent two PDFs of a NTK and the Final reminder. These are not scans of original letters and effectively could be created on a desktop with any date entered.  Neither of these are actually date evidenced with proof of postage so it is impossible to tell if they did actually post them. I did request proof of postage as anyone can create a PDF with any date on it.

Given that the car users regularly use the car park, images of them entering and leaving should be available on most days but without proof that a NTK was actually sent there is nothing to prove they did not pay for parking on that day. A PDF is not evidence of non payment and neither are the entry/exit pictures. 

Given that neither the NTK or final reminder were received and that the first notification came from the debt collection agency (which did arrive)  I would welcome further advice. Should I contest this by saying that they still have not provided evidence of non-payment and posting date of the NTK and reminder which proves that this had been sent within the timeline required. By the time they reply the 30 days will be up anyway and they have not given the critical information which was requested. 

I'd welcome any further advice. 

Coupon-mad

Was the address on the purported letters correct?

lola1411

The address used was the admin address for the company. It has a different registered office address. The PDF was created on the 21st March 2022  date of the sar request processing. They did not send proof of posting either the NTK or the final reminder which I requested because we did not ever get either of these.

Therefore we have no proof that they sent either.

in the reminder which is address to Company Secretary, they state the following 'We, National Car Parks Limited, are the creditor. At the time of this notice we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and as the registered keeper of the vehicle ' 
As the critical information is still not given - ie that they did send the NTK and a final reminder, we still have no indication that they actually ever sent it. The directors have previously had the odd ticket which they paid on receipt of the NTK. But not on this occasion. ?? 

Coupon-mad

Was it issued at a train station site?

What alleged breach?

Was the NTK compliant with the POFA 2012?

Was the driver on work business, or not?

Quite possibly the company can't be held liable, depending on the answers to these questions. 

lola1411

It appears that the car park was 'East Finchley' which from maps looks like it is the LUL station car park. there does not appear to be another NCP around. So if the case does that mean it falls under exclusions for ANPR keeper liability? I attach the pdf which they created on the date of my SAR but still have not sent proof of posting the original. That may not matter as we don't know who the driver was and no one received the NTK or reminder. We've just had the legal letter from QDR escalating the case and demanding and threatening a CCJ. Presumably we must still write back and give reasons as why the charge and costs are disputed and (if the case) invalid as Keeper is not the driver and we do not knowwho the driver was. Possible the driver was parking for a work trip but there's no way of telling.