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

Coupon-mad

But you said it's a company car.

Which name & address is on the V5C - a lease firm?  Does the vehicle owner/keeper (lease firm) get the initial PCNs by post each time, and are they holding an old address and passing on wrong info?

lola-909

It is not a lease company - the company bought and owns the vehicle.

The address on the V5 is where the vehicle is mostly kept which is the admin address for the business. The letter as with last time is addressed to 'xxx Ltd' That would be the same address as a PCN would (should) have been posted to but nothing ever received. Neither was any follow up frrom either SABA or ZZPS as they suggested  - this letter is the first indication any 'ticket' was issued. No person's name is mentioned on the ZZPS letter. Not even Company Secretary. It is only the 2nd pcn issued to the vehicle. 

Jenni_D

If the letter was addressed to the company then they KNOW they're on a hiding to nothing ... I don't think a company keeper can be held liable under PoFA (happy to be corrected); I know a company cannot be held liable as a driver.

1505grandad

Is this relevant  -  especially C-m's post 21.9.2020:-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6192876/company-vehicle-pcn/p1

lola-909

@Jennie_D exactly! 

My hunch is that SABA and previously NCP on doing a dvla check found that it was a company car and passed straight to the debt agency because they knew they had little to no evidence as to who was driving. They knew the debt agency in their ruthless approach would be more likely to get a payment. So I reckon this was why on both occasions no NTD or reminder to pay was sent ahead of the debt letters. 

Umkomaas

lola-909 said:

@Jennie_D exactly! 

My hunch is that SABA and previously NCP on doing a dvla check found that it was a company car and passed straight to the debt agency because they knew they had little to no evidence as to who was driving. They knew the debt agency in their ruthless approach would be more likely to get a payment. So I reckon this was why on both occasions no NTD or reminder to pay was sent ahead of the debt letters. 

Not sure about the hunch, often lease/hire companies are easy pickings for PPCs as they will simply pay the ticket, bill it to the lessee/hirer's credit card, including a tasty admin fee to boot.  Money in the PPC's account within days!

lola-909

Umkomass - this is not a lease/hire company. It is a limited company fully owned car. That's why I suspect the parking companies just passed onto the debt collectors - knowing it would be a struggle to identify a driver. So did not bother to send out interim NTD or reminders. Straight to ZZPS to try and do the dirty work and hope that some company secretary would just make the payment from the company account. With the lack of any prior indication other than the zzps letter I think that is quite possible. Also as a station car park it is not relevant land. 

lola1411

So here's the predicted QDR letter addressed to the company name. Are the laws still the same railway car park and is there a quick shut up response that I can send please. No driver notified. 

lola1411

This was the cease and desist letter sent last time - just checking that this is all still appropriate? It is SABA this time so I will change detail but anything here that may no longer be applicable? 

Coupon-mad

Dear Sirs,

It may have escaped your attention but you have written to a company who cannot possibly have been the driver. The company is not liable.

Has it also escaped your attention that this isn't relevant land?

Nice try by you - or more likely by Mr Osner's lot at ZZPS, who sent this template £170 threatogram (some might call it baseless drivel) with QDR letter-heading, in an attempt to mislead the recipient into thinking a solicitor is involved.

We aren't that stupid here and won't be throwing the driver under the bus even if we knew which driver (or their insured friend or family member) might have been behind the wheel that day at a train station, going about their own personal business unrelated to work.

For the avoidance of doubt: what we can say is that due to the date and location, the driver was not driving 'on behalf of' the company, so spare us the usual roboclaim firms' template dross pretending that the 'law of agency' might apply.

It doesn't.

SABA has no cause of action and this crap is becoming tiresome.  Reading and responding to this rubbish is taking us away from our core business.

Thus, if you write to the company again, by reading this response you AND YOUR CLIENTS, SABA, are deemed to have accepted by conduct, our terms which are a very reasonable £40 (plus VAT if applicable) for each and every letter from or sent on behalf of you, your clients or their agents - including each and every pre- and post-action letter or Order - that we are expected to read from this date forward.  No discounted charge applies.

The full charge is payable, per letter or Order that we are forced to handle about this matter, whether we reply or not.

Count yourselves lucky that this final response from us is a freebie, on this occasion only.

You may wish to consult a real solicitor for some proper legal advice, if the (sadly) low-paid call centre hapless person who reads this doesn't understand the B2B contract that you and your clients are now accepting if you (or SABA or their solicitors or other agents) choose to continue to deal with our company. 

Yours faithfully

COMPANY NAME