I'm not a PCN virgin any more.

Trainerman

Brilliant stuff @Fruitcake. I am really enjoying your well thought out missives that underline so well the way these people operate.

If you are going to carry on like this, I will have to increase the stock of wine here . Wine and 'Fruity's' latest put downs of the parasites are a top combination !

Fruitcake

There's more. I got another notice of debt collection by post, and a couple of emails, even though they said they are unable to correspond further with me. In the latest email it say amongst other things, "should you wish to discuss the matter further please provide your est (sic) contact number ..."

My reply,

Ooh, someone new to play with. What fun!

DDDDD, you and your colleagues really need to get your act together and explain clearly and succinctly what you want. This statement from you below does not make sense,

"DCBL advised that we are unable to enter into any further written correspondence; however Notices of Debt recovery will continue to be issued as the balance remains outstanding."

On the one hand you say you (as in DCB Limited) are unable to enter into any further written correspondence then immediately contradict that by saying notices of debt recovery, which by definition comprise written correspondence, will continue to be issued. Both you, DDDDD, and DCB Limited, by that statement are being contrary. We know a song about a lady called Mary who was contrary, don't we children? I'm singing it now in my head whilst I type this.

So which is it? Are you unable to correspond further, or are you able to? Your predecessors were unable to explain that point. Perhaps you can do better because your statement makes no sense. Not only is it contradictory, it is confusing. You keep asking me to pay an alleged debt that you know, or should know, that I do not owe, say you are unable to correspond, yet repeatedly prove that statement to be untrue because you are able to correspond with gifts of firelighters for my multi-fuel stove in the form of pointless postal paper notices.

Not only do you know, or should know that I do not owe you nor your client, Parkmaven Limited, any monies, but your client, Parkmaven Limited knows I do not owe them any monies. However, you seem to be unable, or perhaps unwilling, to enter into correspondence with your client on this matter.

No matter; we (you, DCB Limited, and I) all know you (as in DCB Limited) have absolutely no powers to collect monies on behalf of anyone. 

By the way, did you know that I have forced Parkmaven Limited to look into discrepancies and misinformation of their complaints policy on their website by complaining to the BPA?

Oh yes, your client and I are on great terms. They have had no problems entering into correspondence with me, although they did manage to lose my initial complaint and had to ask me for a copy of it. I don't know about you, but they don't exactly inspire confidence in me. 

They (Parkmaven Limited) won't be paying you (DCB Limited) by the way, although you know that, or at least should know that since you offer a no-collection no-fee contract. Since you won't be collecting anything from me, they won't be paying you a fee for failing to collect anything from me.

In conclusion, and for the (further) avoidance of doubt, I neither owe you (DCB Limited), nor your client (Parkmaven Limited), nor anyone else for that matter (having just paid off my mortgage, HUZZAH!) any monies at all. Not a single groat: not even a penny, nor one solitary single plack.

I would however like to know whether you really meant it when you (and your colleagues previously) said you (DCB Limited) are now unable to enter into correspondence with me, or whether you will continue to contradict this statement by sending me further futile fruitless notices of debt recovery.

 

Regards 

Fruity

PS, What's an "est number?" Is that similar to the year a company was established, as in "DCB Limited (wholesale flower supplier) Est 2015?" or perhaps, "DCB Limited (specialist food suppliers) Est 2006"?

Fruitcake

I complained to the BPA about Parkmaven's failure to send me the initial NTK, a reminder, and a final reminder after I complained to Parkmaven about this failure. Apparently, PM lost it and asked me for a copy. I told them to go forth and look for it because the Interpretation Act presumes they received it. 
They have yet to respond to me, but did reply to the BPA who have since replied to me. In the BPA's response they comment that is a case of she said-he said. PM say they sent the docs, I say I didn't receive them. I know that out of PM and moi-self, at least one of us is telling the truth.

To save everyone having to trawl back, the NTK was issued as the result of a major typo, VRM of another vehicle being entered. However, as I pointed out to all concerned, including the manager of the hotel where the alleged event occurred, and the IHG (hotel chain) UK CEO, had PM used typo-proof technology, this would never have happened.

Any road up, the BPA (not PM) asked me to provide proof of payment for parking, which I did because the driver took photos of the payment tablet as I have encouraged all my family members to do.
The BPA said that since the driver paid, and the times and dates match, it is obvious it was a major typo, so PM have graciously offered to reduce the charge to £20, and the BPA has closed the case.

The interesting thing however is that as well as copies of the NTKs and reminders PM allegedly sent, the BPA has included alleged Sir Sticky-Foots of (hybrid) postage, one of which I have attached.



It would appear that Unity 5 are the mob behind Zatpark, and are IPC but not BPA accredited.

Had the NTK been sent sent first class via Royal Mail, it would be presumed to have arrived within PoFA timescales. However, Hybrid mail adds at least a day, and possibly more, and the delivery class is vague and doesn't specifically mention first class. Theoretically, even if the NTK had arrived, it cannot be presumed to have arrived by day 14.

As for the comment from the BPA about PM's generous reduction to £20, I'll see their offer and raise them a cancellation email from the landowner and time/date stamped PM payment portal screenshots with nowt but a message saying nowt due.

I've tried digging into the properties and it shows a creation date of the 9th of Feb, but of course that could be the date it was transferred to/created on the BPA system. 

Castle

Is the date of delivery/issue the same as that stated on the NTK?

Fruitcake

The date of issue of the non existent NTK is 05/09/23, which is the same as the alleged NTK date sent on the certificate of postage.

Whilst the metadata shows the creation date of the certificate as being the 9th of Feb, the created on date of the NTK is "Not available," although the created by tag is Parkmaven. All I can say about this is that the date the NTK was created, and the date of creation of the certificate of postage is not proven from the info' with which I have been provided. 

Castle

Sending a SAR to Unity 5 may now be worthwhile.

Fruitcake

Castle said:

Sending a SAR to Unity 5 may now be worthwhile.

That's a good idea, if only for the buggrance factor. I'll happily mess with anyone involved in the unregulated parking business to cost them time and money, even if it is only a few minutes and a few groats.

I have yet to send an SAR to DCB Limited as well. Tee-hee. Well, the nice lady at the BPA with whom I have been dealing suggested I might like to do so.

Fruitcake

Well now, I've had an email from Parkmaven saying I owe them £20, and that amount has appeared on the payment portal.

I have of course told them it was cancelled upon instruction by the landowner, so I wait with baited breath their reply.

Meanwhile, Castle's post has reminded me that I complained to PM that they had not supplied me with copies of all the data they hold about me, because they didn't include the stuff they sent to DCB Limited. I have now realised that they didn't supply me with copies of my data they sent to Unity 5 either. 
Since I gave them 7 days in my complaint to supply my missing personal data otherwise I would complain to the ICO, and that time has has long since expired, I shall now make good on my ICO threat and include copies of the stuff from DCB L and Unity. I shall say that since I now have proof my personal data was given to at least two other third party companies that PM failed to provide me copies of as a result of my SAR, I cannot be sure if it has been shared elsewhere without my knowledge.

Fruitcake

Following my complaint about the £20 charge having reappeared when it had been cancelled under instruction from the landowner last year, it is again no longer showing on Parkmaven's payment portal.

Woo. Hoo. A twice cancelled PCN. 

I have sent an SAR to DCB Limited, but Unity Five Limited do not accept emails via hotmail nor gmail on their dpo.officer@ email address, nor their online query form. It's as if they don't want to be contacted, so it will be off to the local sub-post office next week for me to send a postal request.

I shall now start work on my complaint to the ICO that Parkmaven failed to supply with me with all the data they hold about me following an SAR and a follow up complaint. Items missing are at least one data set to/from DCB Limited, and at least one data set to/from Unity 5 Limited. 

What fun!

Castle

Did you try this email address:-

2. WHO WE ARE AND HOW TO CONTACT US

• 2.1 For the purpose of the Data Protection Laws, the data controller is Unity Five Limited, registered company number 07202010. If you want to request more information about our privacy policy or information regarding data protection you should contact us using the details provided below:

• FAO: Privacy Officer, Unity Five Limited, Winslade Park, Manor Drive, Clyst St Mary, Exeter EX5 1FY

• Email: privacy.officer@unity5.com

• Telephone: 03333 44 0834 and ask to speak to the Privacy Officer