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

lola1411

here's the text 

Complaint Final Response

 

We write further to your complaint and can confirm that we are now in a position to provide you with our final response.

 

We received your email on 21 April 2022, expressing your dissatisfaction with the following:

 

•              The Government have set out a new code for the escalation of costs in relation to Parking Charge Notices.

•              You state we have failed to issue a letter before action.

•              You believe our letters fail to meet CSA and SRA standards and are designed to extort money, frighten and intimidate you.

•              That our correspondence allows you 14 days to reply and feel it should be 30 days.

•              Our Client is ZZPS Limited and not the Car Parking Operator

•              You have expressed your dissatisfaction with our Clients past and companies previously associated with them.

•              You feel we are attempting to mislead a registered keeper about liability.

•              You dispute the matter on valid grounds.

•              No notice to keeper was issued to you.

 

Investigation

 

Having reviewed our file and to provide some context, we can confirm that this matter was transferred to us from our client, ZZPS Limited on 25 February 2022.

 

We were instructed to contact you, regarding an outstanding balance of £182.00 on the above matter, which was related to a parking contravention that occurred on 16 November 2021, for No Payment’.

 

This incident occurred at the following parking site which is operated by NATIONAL CAR PARKS LIMITED:

 

EAST FINCHLEY LONDON AB1234

 

Our Client maintain that all additional charges are correct and in line with their regulations.

 

When matters are transferred to us for debt recovery, we trust that the information provided by our client is accurate and correct, so we can communicate with you on behalf of our client in recovery of the balance. We must ensure we attempt communication with you, as per our client’s instruction, unless instructed otherwise.

 

Please note we solely act upon our client’s instruction, therefore we are unable to make any decisions on behalf of our client nor overturn any decisions made by them, unless instructed otherwise.

 

A Letter Before Action would only be issued when we receive instruction to begin legal proceedings.

 

The matter is currently being managed by our Pre-Litigation department, therefore no Letter Before Action has been issued at this stage.

 

Please be assured that our correspondence has never been intended to intimidate or frighten you. Our letters only seek to notify you of the possible consequences of non-payment, so that you may make an informed decision regarding this matter, as we are obligated to follow regulations set out by the Solicitors Regulations Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. The contents of our letters fall in line with the regulations we have to follow.

 

Our initial correspondence provides 14 days for customers to contact us, this can be reviewed and extended if required following contacting us.

 

It is correct that our Client is ZZPS Limited and not the car park operator, NATIONAL CAR PARKS LIMITED.

 

ZZPS Limited manage the file on behalf of the carpark operator and as such can instruct to manage the file.

 

We are unable to comment on the points you have made regarding our Client, ZZPS Limited, please note that QDR Solicitors are in no way linked with ZZPS Limited, both are separate companies.

 

Our Client maintains that the all correspondence has been issued and the correct process has been followed.

 

Please note when the Parking Charge Notice is first issued there is a time frame to allow you time to raise any disputes or transfer liability.

 

Once the matter has been passed to us the opportunity to appeal has passed, and we are unable to review any such requests.

 

As it is passed the point to transfer liability, the registered keeper remains liable for the outstanding balance.

 

Conclusion

 

Taking into consideration the explanation we have given, we are unable to uphold your complaint, as the correct process has been followed, in line with our clients’ instruction and our internal process.  

 

Your file will remain on hold for a further 14 days to allow time for payment of the outstanding balance, before further actions are commenced.

 

We trust this clarifies our position and that you are satisfied with our explanation. If you remain dissatisfied with our response you may also refer the matter to the Credit Services Association (CSA), who can act as a mediator in resolving the matter. Their contact details are as follows:

 

Credit Service Association

2 Esh Plaza

Sir Bobby Robson Way

Great Park

Newcastle Upon Tyne

NE13 9BA

 

Web:    www.csa-uk.com

Tel:       0191 2170775

 

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Our offices are open between the hours of 9.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Thursday and 9.00am and 5.30pm on Friday.

 

Yours faithfully,

Jane Clarke

Customer Assurance Team

For and on behalf of

QDR Solicitors

lola1411

so how should we respond.
Send them an invoice for our admin time stating we have passed our file to our admin company and that our costs incurred are £900 for time investigating and finding that no NTK was ever sent to the driver despite a request for proof of postage where NCP had 30 days to respond. 

And  for legal advice that confirmed that the registered keeper is not liable under the byelaws of a station car park.
and that there is no contract with ZZPS when entering and using the car park under terms with NCP ltd. Thus this continued attempt of extortion of additional costs  is now being forwarded to the StaRs as a complaint about  continued harassment which breaches the rules imposed by the new government legislation. In addition that we will  now pursue our costs for the unnecessary and continued time and stress to address the threats of CCJs etc. 

Does this sound appropriate? 

patient_dream

As Jenni said ...... but the letter on right, which idiot company sent you that.

ZZPS cannot be clients ?  ZZPS are simply stupid money scammers and do not issue parking tickets

I just wonder when the BPA will wake up and spank the idiots who put the BPA IN disrepute ?
You could not make this rubbish up .....  amazing stupidity

Jenni_D

patient_dream said:

As Jenni said ...... but the letter on right, which idiot company sent you that.

Look at the very last line of the post 3 up ... it tells you, and I'd already said who it was.

lola1411

the company directors will want to respond - apologies but I don't understand the meaning of 'but the letter on right' ? There are two different company reg numbers and I get that ZZPS cannot pursue this but would welcome how we might reply with a suitably appropriate response. 

Coupon-mad

This is QDR's 'final response' so the complaint has been exhausted. No response goes to them.  Now you must up the ante and complain to the CSA and SRA and tell them, your company has 6 main concerns:

1.   QDR say they are in 'no way' connected to ZZPS.  However, they appear to be connected/sharing a debt demand letter chain, and this bears all the hallmarks of a firm issuing letters that mimic the position of a solicitor contemplating proceedings (rather like Wonga did).  This letter admits that QDR are not contemplating proceedings at all and appear to be just an extension of ZZPS and are not acting on behalf of the creditor (NCP).  As this is impossible for a lay party to unpick, you ask that the CSA and SRA investigates the apparent connection between the two firms, who are known to run this letter chain together routinely.

2. QDR say above the word 'conclusion' that it is too late to transfer liability because some imaginary deadline is up.  That simply isn't true.  The POFA 2012 Schedule 4 says that a keeper can transfer liability at any time before legal action commences.  This position is further established by the new DLUHC Code of Practice from 7.2.2022 which confirms the legal position, that a keeper can name the driver or hirer/lessee at any point during the pre-action phase and then a new PCN must be sent to the driver or hirer, who can then appeal or pay 'at the original rate'.  Further, NCP's trade body, the British Parking Association's Parking News Article where SCS Law confirm what it means to 'begin proceedings' (i.e. that a transfer of liability can indeed be done at any time and cannot be 'too late' or 'time passed'): 
http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/395/26/  

3.  QDR say (as if it is a legal fact) that the registered keeper is liable in this case.  The complainant believes this is not true and is designed, once again, to mislead the recipient.  It is impossible for a company to have been the driver. The NCP documents were 'non-POFA' (i.e. not worded as a POFA version including either 8(2)f or 9(2)f from Schedule 4 (the registered keeper liability warning) and the land is not 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 and further explained here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf 

4.  QDR are obliged by the CSA to cease 'work' in pursuing an alleged debt if it is disputed on valid grounds, or what may be valid grounds.  Instead they have responded to the complaint and - going by the demand for money at the end of their response - they fully intend to carry on.  The complainant asked for the file to be returned to the creditor (NCP) given there is no intention to proceed to court and the debt is validly disputed.  This has not happened, so QDR appear to be in breach of the CSA code.  They also mislead the recipient by saying that the FCA applies to this case, but it doesn't apply, because parking charges are not within FCA remit.  Even if it was, the FCA CONC rules say that disputed debts are not collectible.  The file should have been passed back to NCP, who are the only party who can decide whether to proceed to court and who know full well they can only pursue the driver in this case, not a company.

5.  The complainant would like the CSA and SRA to consider the misleading and aggressive language used in the whole ZZPS and QDR letter chain, especially in the light of the fact that neither the hirer nor the keeper can be held liable in a non-POFA case.  Only a known driver can be pursued in a non-POFA case and the keeper has no obligation to name that person and no adverse inference can be drawn.  On private land, no presumption is allowed that the keeper/hirer was the driver, in the absence of any evidence (this is the legal position as confirmed by expert parking law barrister and PATAS/POPLA Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 - which applies to NCP - and repeated in the new Code of Practice from the DLUHC this February).

6.  ZZPS and QDR appear to have added the false £70 for their own profit and the complaint wants the CSA and SRA to investigate this conduct which appears to breach all standards. QDR say they are only doing what their client (their mates at ZZPS) told them to pursue, and have ignored the fact that the Government declared that sum as 'designed to extort money from motorists' in the Ministerial Foreword to the new statutory Code of Practice which has finally banned that extortion.  The new Code and Explanatory Document wording from the DLUHC say that they expect parking firms and their agents (with the only longer term issues likely being changing signage and reducing new charges to £50) to start acting immediately within the code straight away, where possible, in order to cease the extortionate and aggressive debt demand model and to pass on the fairer model benefits to motorists as well as company keepers.  Even if QDR/ZZPS say that this new Code isn't fully implemented yet, the Explanatory Notes to the POFA Schedule 4 have (effectively) been a persuasive note section of that legislation since 2012 and para 223 says " The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).".  So why is a debt collector and their seemingly connected solicitor, adding money on top (seemingly for themselves) when QDR's client is not even NCP?   There is no 'late fee' legislation in this country to allow penalties to induce motorists to pay alleged (unproven) contractual debts and even if the commercial debt Late Payment regulations came into play (which they don't because the company is not the liable party here) this caps any added 'costs' at £40. This is likely to be one of the many reasons why the Government banned this model on 7th February.

Le_Kirk

..... and it is still a debt collector's letter; the 14 days confirms that.

Coupon-mad

Indeed, so the CSA can look into the letters from both.  What exactly is the connection between ZZPS and QDR?  This final response says none but they are joined at the hip, from our experience.

lola1411

I did look both companies up to see if there was any director connection - can't find any but given that QDR was Quantum Debt Recovery it is presumably just another debt collection agency designed to give the appearance of escalation. If they operate as a partnership it may not be obvious but for a track record of too many incidents of similar process. Interestingly they seem to write as though they are the same - ie refer to 'our previous letter' which was in fact the ZZPS letter. And phrases like When matters are transferred to us for debt recovery  Our Client maintain that all additional charges are correct and in line with their regulations. - the client being ZZPS NOT NCP. 

lola1411

This is the list of CSA Code of conduct and what we believe has been breached. - thanks v much again Coupon-mad! that has been raised. next stop the SRA 
1 d Establish, implement and maintain adequate policies and procedures, sufficient to ensure compliance with industry legislation, regulation, codes and standards...
g. Observe proper standards of market conduct, and not act in a way which may be detrimental to the objects, interests, or influence of the Association.
h. Pay due regard to the interests of their customers and treat them fairly.
2B. Conduct their business under names, titles and trading styles which are not intended to confuse, mislead or embarrass clients, creditors, customers or members of the public
O Treat businesses with whom they deal fairly and transparently
w. Communicate with customers fairly and transparently, and not intentionally mislead them.
x. Cooperate with customers and their authorised third parties in line with regulatory guidance, and not act in a manner intended to publicly embarrass or cause them distress.
 y. Treat customers fairly and not subject customers (or their authorised representatives) to aggressive practices, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether lawful or not.
ab. Ensure that they take into account a customer’s domicile and the law applicable to the agreement underlying the debt.
d. Ensure that all practices involved in the tracing process are transparent and in line with relevant regulation and guidance, prior to any collections activity.
7e. Take reasonable steps to ensure that the person traced is in fact the customer.
 i. Update all records promptly and accurately, where data is proven to be inaccurate.
 8c. Not refer to litigation or insolvency proceedings unless the commencement of proceedings is genuine and intended.
l. Not use trading styles which are likely to mislead or confuse.
11c. Not mislead customers as to the consequences or inevitability of consequences arising from any legal or bankruptcy action. k. Only impose costs and interest on customers to which they are lawfully entitled.