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

KeithP

East Finchley London Underground Station car park is covered by byelaws.
Confirmation that it is subject to TFL Byelaws as from November 2014:-
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tube_station_car_parks_2

This means that NCP cannot transfer any driver's liability to the keeper as the car park is not 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

lola1411

Super thank you KeithP - so do we write back to the legal firm QDR (letter just received but dated 21st March) - and is there a template wording that I can point to for reference? Presumably we have to make some sort of response to stop further letters even if they are empty threats. 

Coupon-mad

It won't stop letters and there is no template.

Just write about there being no keeper liability because it's not relevant land under the POFA.

Surely the driver would not park there at a station all day from 9am till gone 8pm, without paying?  Must be a VRM keying error or a double visit (two quick drop off/pick ups presumed to be one long stay).

I would suggest those two scenarios to QDR and demand that their client checks their ANPR or CCTV for orphan images in between the first and last captures.  Plus check their payment log for 'keying error' close-match VRMs and supply you with a partly-redacted copy of that log.

If they refuse, remind them of 5.2 of the pre-action protocol for debt claims.

lola1411

thanks Coupon-mad  - it is in fact v possible that a driver simply entered in the morning to get the train and forgot to pay by phone for example and  was out all day meeting clients. We just don't know. If a NTK had been sent it would normally just have been paid but only in this case neither were received. And having asked for proof of posting in the SAR request which they did not provide I am wondering whether they ever sent the NTK or just suddenly found the file and pushed it to the debt agency. 

The car users have had PCNs once or twice and always just paid but this is an odd one given the sudden debt collection letter with nothing before it. 

Interestingly the QDR letter (see cropped) states they are instructed by ZZPS on behalf of NCP. 

I have drafted the attached letter to them  - if possible would welcome a view on any of this.
 

Coupon-mad

Don't copy 'Abuse of process - the Quantum' and the paragraph number and blurb about Excel v Wilkinson.   They'll rebut it with VCS v Percy.

Instead, use this that I've based on the Template Defence and tweaked to suit your case:

As you are aware, the Government has banned the false 'debt recovery costs' noting that these were never actually incurred because the 'private parking DRAs' were operating free of charge for the parking industry, until the 'fixed late fee' scam was stopped this February.

In his Ministerial Foreword, DLUHC's Neil O'Brien talks of "aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists":  
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

Under 'Escalation of costs' the statutory Code states: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."

Whilst the Code of Practice is not retrospective, there cannot be a clearer steer for the courts than the fact that the DLUHC has declared the false added fixed fees to have been "designed to extort money from motorists".

Moreover, it is my position that any parking roboclaim legal firm which now issues a claim enhanced by the false 'debt recovery' costs - despite knowing that the DLUHC has banned them and declared this element to be 'extortion' - cannot possibly be acting in good faith.

As such, if the parking firm does now proceed to issue a claim enhanced by the (known to be false) £82 'fees', I will report you to the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority for breach of the STaRs: failing to act with 'honesty & integrity' or in a way which upholds public trust and confidence:

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/

You have also failed to send a compliant letter before claim and are attempting to mislead a registered keeper about liability.  Your shoddy letter fails to meet CSA and SRA standards and is designed to extort money and to frighten and intimidate me, with dire consequences of CCJs as well as the exaggerated quantum.

Your random threatogram gives me just 14 days (not 30) and your so-called client is not the parking firm potential Claimant, but a third party: ZZPS from your own stable.  A phoenix of a debt collector, created out of the ashes of disgraced Roxburghe UK, and run by the same directors who were responsible for misleading consumers, according to the OFT who banned them from renewing their licence.

Cease and desist.  This matter is disputed on valid grounds.  As such, you and your mates at ZZPS must pass the file back to the originating parking firm, NCP.  Stop harassing me for a purported parking charge that a registered keeper or lessee cannot be held liable for, and where no NTK was ever served.

Be on notice that I will counterclaim for a three figure sum for damages for distress caused by harassment and data abuse, should your clients' clients (the parking firm) now try a claim.

lola1411

wow - excellent. thank you. 

patient_dream

Interestingly the QDR letter (see cropped) states they are instructed by ZZPS on behalf of NCP.

How stupid QDR are ???  ZZPS cannot instruct QDR ... only NCP can do that.

All ZZPS are is sewer living critters who invented the fake add-on scam ?  Worst of all, they are approved by the BPA and to top it off, they are also board members of the BPA

It's no wonder government is scuppering this circus of clowns

lola1411

Today we got a reply to the letter sent as templated by Coupon-mad.
Be interested to know how you think we should respond.  

MothballsWallet

@lola1411 I'm struggling to read that even on my 23" LED screen - is there another way you can post the letter for us please?

Jenni_D

Don't bother - I zoomed in and it's a typical whitewash, as expected given that (I believe) QDR Solicitors and ZZPS Limited are the same people. 🙄