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

lola1411

Regardless of the whole fiasco the admin charges anyway are nothing to do with us. No contract exists between our company and QDR which agrees that we have requested their admin services or will pay admin charges that their own 'client' has incurred. Their client is ZZPS. It is their admin fee. More proof really that the two entities are just partners in crime trying to extort as much added money as they can get away with. The other stand out sentence says 'we can confirm this matter was transferred to us from our client ...' NO! A solicitor acts for a client. A case cannot be transferred to a solicitor. The solicitor is acting as a debt collector - not the legally appointed representative of a client. But QDR in reality is just a debt collector which that sentence as good as admits. TRANSFERRED FROM one DRA to another. 

Umkomaas

NO! A solicitor acts for a client. A case cannot be transferred to a solicitor. The solicitor is acting as a debt collector - not the legally appointed representative of a client. But QDR in reality is just a debt collector which that sentence as good as admits. TRANSFERRED FROM one DRA to another. 

Have you asked QDR to confirm in what capacity they are operating, before you refer the case to the SRA?

lola1411

our complaint to the SRA had gone in a while back - before we got this response from the CSA complaint. Have not heard back from the SRA at all. But though they imply they are acting for ZZPS they slipped up really saying the file was transferred to them as taking on the debt collection rather than collecting on behalf of their client. And also saying 'we believe our client has given us valid grounds in pursuing this debt' (note they refer to it as a debt not a parking penalty!). I may send their response onto the SRA - I have already chased them. They confirm they do not even have access to the NCP correspondence but keep claiming they 'believe our client has given us valid grounds...' On the basis of what evidence! We have said repeatedly that no NTK was ever sent and NCP did not provide proof of posting it as we requested in our SAR. I think I should send QDR an invoice for our admin fees relating to this which based on my hourly rate and time wasted will be a lot higher than £182!  

patient_dream

It seems that QDR are screwing this up as each day passes ?

The simple fact is that ZZPS have zero to do with this or you, they are only Leeches who attach themselves to suck out more money

Only the parking company can instruct the legal

The courts allow a claim for each letter @ £19 and there is no harm in charging them the same rate for each letter sent which you can counterclaim

On the subject of proof of posting, the law says a letter is deemed delivered within 2-3 days.   Daft really if the post office lost it but proof is required of that which is impossble.

they "believe our client has given us valid grounds..."

They "believe", how exciting  .... don't they know ? and do they know who really is their client ?

QDR are an offshoot of Wright Hassall solicitors.  The BPA were stupid enough a few years ago to appoint Wright Hassall solicitors as a POPLA

What did Wright Hassall solicitors do, well they rejected appeals and then went on to sue people.  The BPA gave them the boot

The fake "admin" charge has no basis in law, it's just a cloud dreaming fabrication by ZZPS and approved by the BPA in their code of practice.

They are all into the scam ...... 

lola1411

I think we're up to a few hundred £ by now  of my time and letters. But it's the moral principle for me because a company paying these scammers is just incentive for them to continue. NCP seem to have disappeared from this and given that they never sent evidence of posting the NTK (which was never received) presumably passed the file quickly to ZZPS as 'here you go - you try to get what you can'. Looking at the point about posting it seems the law would be with us because no postage evidence was given - no certificate of posting. And therefore the chance to appeal let alone even know there was a parking ticket was never alerted. My guess is that it was around Christmas time and no one bothered to send anything. All NCP sent was a multi page pdf of letters the pdf which was generated at the date of the SAR request. Not the proof of postage which we asked for. 

This is from the thomson reuters site...

 'Evidence is fundamental to the outcome of any civil litigation case because, ordinarily, the facts in issue in a case must be proved by evidence, and the judge will decide the case on the evidence adduced by the parties. This note examines the admissibility of evidence in civil proceedings. In particular, it looks at relevance, the exclusionary rules, and the discretion to exclude admissible evidence. It also looks at proving admissible evidence.' 

Coupon-mad

Looking at the point about posting it seems the law would be with us because no postage evidence was given - no certificate of posting. 

Sadly, the law isn't with you on that.

Interpretation Act 1978

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression ” give ” or ” send ” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

Practice Direction [1985] 1 All ER 889 states that, unless the contrary is proved, First class mail is deemed delivered on the second working day after posting, and Second class the fourth working day after posting. “Working Day” means Monday to Friday not including Bank Holidays.

lola1411

But we can surely say that the driver was not properly addressed and it was not the keeper but the driver that was liable. Crazy law because the lack of receipt of both NTK and awareness that any 'ticket' existing at all were fundamental to this situation. Plus what's to stop anyone from saying they did appeal and posted back that appeal within the timeframe and that appeal was ignored. Just as an example.

 And what does 'an Act' refer to? does that include parking tickets? Presumably when the whole P Andrew avoiding receipt of papers, his signature wasn't actually required - only the acknowledgement that the legal team had sent them. 

KeithP

lola1411 said:

 And what does 'an Act' refer to? does that include parking tickets?

In the context being discussed, google tells us that...

An Act is a Bill that has been approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and been given Royal Assent by the Monarch. Taken together, Acts of Parliament make up what is known as Statute Law in the UK.

Coupon-mad

Plus what's to stop anyone from saying they did appeal and posted back that appeal within the timeframe and that appeal was ignored. Just as an example.

Nothing to stop that except the court requirement for honesty.

All submissions are made with a statement of truth, acknowledging the consequences if caught lying.

 And what does 'an Act' refer to? does that include parking tickets? 

Yes. 'Act' = statute law.

The POFA Schedule 4 in this case, is the Act that sets out the rules for serving a NTK, in a case where the registered keeper is to be held liable.

Is the NTK one that attempts to hold the keeper liable? They don't all include the wording needed (para 8(2)f or 9(2)f of Schedule 4 of the POFA contains the keeper liability warning.

NCP don't always use that version.

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Plus what's to stop anyone from saying they did appeal and posted back that appeal within the timeframe and that appeal was ignored. Just as an example.

Nothing to stop that except the court requirement for honesty.

All submissions are made with a statement of truth, acknowledging the consequences if caught lying.

 And what does 'an Act' refer to? does that include parking tickets? 

Yes. 'Act' = statute law.

The POFA Schedule 4 in this case, is the Act that sets out the rules for serving a NTK, in a case where the registered keeper is to be held liable.

Is the NTK one that attempts to hold the keeper liable? They don't all include the wording needed (para 8(2)f or 9(2)f of Schedule 4 of the POFA contains the keeper liability warning.

NCP don't always use that version.

Except that this is not relevant land-so POFA is not applicable.