Latest Misleading DRP letter. One for Trading Standards?

kryten3000

Found this posted on LinkedIn:

The letter reads:

"Urgent Reminder - Pay by 20.03.2025 or a CCJ can be issued against you

After several warnings about non-payment consequences, your parking charge remains unpaid. If you fail to make payment a CCJ can be issued against you. Your total fees could rise to €280 if you lose in court."

Then in boxes:

"Legal Action Imminent" and a QR code to scan to make payment

"2015 Supreme Court Ruling: Private Parking Charges are lawful and enforceable"

"Paying is your legal responsibility"

"Your charge increased because you didn't pay."

"4 out of 5 drivers pay after the first letter. Paying is your legal responsibility"



This has elicited a detailed comment from a Trading Standards expert from Manchester Metropolitan University. Their professional opinion is that this letter is likely a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Regulations 2008, which is criminal legislation enforced by Trading Standards.  They encourage anyone who receives this to report it.

Link to the original post: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andy-taylor-mk_this-letter-was-received-by-someone-im-helping-activity-7305665584032083968-4t2q?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAAnKEUBmVOlJy1rOdt3GdZyIL4rpWqIlWw

LDast

It is... but has anyone ever had any success with Trading Standards? Unless it is something physical like counterfeit goods that they can seize, they don't appear to have very much of a track record for stopping the kind of abuse that you have shown above.

BTW, that link doesn't work.

kryten3000

Apparently URL shorteners aren't allowed here. 

Coupon-mad

In case anyone can't see it, here's the professional opinion of an expert at Manchester Metropolitan University:

Response about that Stewart Clure threatogram from Lewis Collantine of MMU

Regarding the letter, in my professional view the references to CCJs are likely to be misleading and a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 ('CPRs'). This is criminal legislation enforced by Trading Standards.

Regulation 5 states that something is misleading if:

> "it contains false information..." OR
> "its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer....even if the information is factually correct...";
> AND it's likely to cause them to take a different transactional decision (e.g. deciding to contact you or pay).

It gives examples of types of information which can be misleading in this regard, such as the "rights of the trader" or "the consumer's rights or the risks he may face".

In addition, Regulation 7 states that something is an aggressive practice if:

> "it is likely to significantly impair the average consumer's freedom of choice or conduct... through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence" > AND it's likely to cause them to take a different transactional decision.

It gives a list of factors to consider, such as "any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken".

Your letter includes the following references to CCJs -

> "Pay by _____ or a CCJ can be issued against you"
> A timeline showing a step described as "County Court Judgement"

In my view, this is misleading under Regulations 5 & 7 because your business is unable to "issue" a CCJ, and the next step after "Recommend Legal Action" is not a "County Court Judgement". This falsely describes the action that can be taken against the consumer and falsely creates the overall impression that a CCJ could be issued against them, when in fact there is a distinct legal process that must be followed and the outcome could go either in favour of, or against, DRP.

This language needs to be amended, for example along the lines of "may apply for..." or "may submit a claim to..."

I hope you'll find this explanation helpful and agree that the wording does need to be amended in order to avoid misleading consumers and breaching CPRs. Please do let me know if you have any questions.

patient_dream

DRP are famous for sending out rubbish letter.
They are members of the BPA after all

NUFF SAID

Half_way

Trading standards area underfunded, understaffed and snowed under with things like phone and vape shops selling tat purchased on temu, american/import "candy" shops selling stuff with banned food additives/bright blue dyes etc and no english translation, plus ebike escooters and so on to be able to deal with the rubbish from the lines of drp
 that is how these companies get away with it all. of or can be complained about them threats such as cant pay the well take it away as featured on the bottom of some letters  should go to any  where they could take action against the scumbag company issuing these threats

ParkingMad

Could this be reported to the Enforcement Conduct Board?
https://enforcementconductboard.org/who-we-are/

Coupon-mad

I think they only oversee bailiff enforcement.