Can claimant include debt recovery charges incurred prior to issuing proceedings?

Car1980

There are a lot of possibilities. They are simply buying alleged debts from the PPC, who can be either hands on or hands off. 

Or they are sharing any eventual spoils. 

Or they are working closely with them in a simple client:solicitor relationship for a fixed fee.

Then there is the issue of which cases go to hearing no matter what, at which point outside advocates come into the equation. Which ones are always discontinued and which particular scenarios are favoured for increased chances of success and which they won't want to ever get to hearing.

They have a stand at Parkex and this is where they sign up most of their new clients. That's the place to find out what's on their menu.

Anecdotally, if you aggressively confront DCBL and use individual DCB Legal employees' emails, they lose their appetite for a court claim. Especially if you copy in the original PPC. If they have a hands-off claim arrangement they don't like it when they get dragged in.

They're not used to people goading them into court. They could have ticketed a fellow solicitor for all they know!

Personally, I like the approach of telling them their invoice is disputed, will never be paid and to send a Letter Before Claim immediately so that a court claim can begin to get underway.

Court hearing dates far in the future from clogged up courts encourages discontinuations. They also know which courts are favourable and unfavourable.

Blindside6

Coupon-mad said:

Yes. Always DCB Ltd bullying first.

I wonder how much internal resource such as DCBL and DCB Legal consume annually, monitoring and filtering the output from this forum and profiling its leading lights? 

Coupon-mad

I don't really care ... it's a compliment.

Although it did pee me off when BW Legal publicised on their website (effectively) that I was on the MHCLG Steering Group, a closed group which didn't include them and was subject to signed NDAs. They weren't meant to know who was on the group, let alone put it in the public domain (that page was very ranty about me - and bargepole - but stayed there until they seemed to remove it a year or so later).

BW Legal also tried & failed to sue Trustpilot which was very funny!

And they threatened to sue me but clearly hadn't bothered to check the limitation period for defamation, or hoped I didn't know it.

There was also (recently) a daft echo chamber vlog by Will Hurley and Rohan K from BW Legal chatting among themselves about this forum. LOL! We should be flattered.

Blindside6

Coupon-mad said:

I don't really care ... it's a compliment.

Although it did pee me off when BW Legal publicised on their website (effectively) that I was on the MHCLG Steering Group, a closed group which didn't include them and was subject to signed NDAs. They weren't meant to know who was on the group, let alone put it in the public domain (that page was very ranty about me - and bargepole - but stayed there until they seemed to remove it a year or so later).

BW Legal also tried & failed to sue Trustpilot which was very funny!

And they threatened to sue me but clearly hadn't bothered to check the limitation period for defamation, or hoped I didn't know it.

There was also (recently) a daft echo chamber vlog by Will Hurley and Rohan K from BW Legal chatting among themselves about this forum. LOL! We should be flattered.

My learning curve seems to get steeper! Why was the composition of the MHCLG Steering Group protected?

Coupon-mad

Because that seems to be how the BSI puts groups together when creating a PAS, especially when the two factions in the meetings are from opposing sides. The fact there were NDAs is already in the public domain. The BPA published quite a lot at the time in Parking News. 

It takes a close level of management to try to reach consensus and that was how the BSI set it up:

https://www.bsigroup.com/en-AE/Our-services/Developing-new-standards/develop-a-pas-your-own-fast-track-standardization-document/

The project started out as a draft PAS in 2020-2021, with the BSI running the consultation virtual meetings all through COVID times. They were fun! I thoroughly enjoyed those...

The BSI stepped away around 2022. Again, that's all in the public domain, so I'm not saying anything here that isn't known.

I think it became clear that the Code would be impossible to work as a PAS and re some aspects, I'd suggest it's pretty obvious that it would have been impossible to get the 'consensus' that a PAS group aims to achieve.

So the version that was placed before Parliament in 2022 (and sailed through to the full applause of all MPs involved) wasn't a PAS. It was the Tory Government's baby and whilst the Code was laid before Parliament and got through unopposed, the parking industry threw money at blocking it. And succeeded at JR (early stage) so the Govt at the time had to back down and re-consult.

They (PPC World) won't hesitate to try the same again without a doubt, IMHO. This is why the Labour Government is treading carefully (slowly...) right now.

Work IS ongoing.

I just can't elucidate.

Blindside6

Coupon-mad said:

Because that seems to be how the BSI puts groups together when creating a PAS, especially when the two factions in the meetings are from opposing sides. The fact there were NDAs is already in the public domain. The BPA published quite a lot at the time in Parking News. 

It takes a close level of management to try to reach consensus and that was how the BSI set it up:

https://www.bsigroup.com/en-AE/Our-services/Developing-new-standards/develop-a-pas-your-own-fast-track-standardization-document/

The project started out as a draft PAS in 2020-2021, with the BSI running the consultation virtual meetings all through COVID times. They were fun! I thoroughly enjoyed those...

The BSI stepped away around 2022. Again, that's all in the public domain, so I'm not saying anything here that isn't known.

I think it became clear that the Code would be impossible to work as a PAS and re some aspects, I'd suggest it's pretty obvious that it would have been impossible to get the 'consensus' that a PAS group aims to achieve.

So the version that was placed before Parliament in 2022 (and sailed through to the full applause of all MPs involved) wasn't a PAS. It was the Tory Government's baby and whilst the Code was laid before Parliament and got through unopposed, the parking industry threw money at blocking it. And succeeded at JR (early stage) so the Govt at the time had to back down and re-consult.

They (PPC World) won't hesitate to try the same again without a doubt, IMHO. This is why the Labour Government is treading carefully (slowly...) right now.

Work IS ongoing.

I just can't elucidate.

Insofar as I can follow all that, it is, presently, a topic of substantial wider interest to me! My laser focus is trained, however, on just five entities which, perhaps, explains why I joined this forum: UK Parking Control Ltd., Euro Car Parks Ltd., Direct Group Ltd and two of its constituents, Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd and DCB Legal Ltd. 

jengleruk

Thanks all for interesting comments.

I was wondering if anyone had ever advanced a civil harrassment claim in respect of the debt recovery letters?

Especially in cases where the defendant (driver) is actively engaging with the claimant (parking operator) and disputing the invoice, and is showing willingness to go to court so that a judge can make a final determination of the validity of the "charge", I would have thought that repeated threatening letters from a 3rd party which dishonestly imply that debt charges for which the driver could be liable are building up and possible CCJs COULD constitute harrassment.

Coupon-mad

No. They are allowed to pursue a debt they reasonably believe is owed.

jengleruk

"They are allowed to pursue a debt they reasonably believe is owed"...

BUT - the debt recovery firm (under their instruction) are making claims they must know are false:

1. they imply that the amount of £70 would form part of the judgment (it shouldn't)
2. they imply that their legal fees would be recoverable if pursuing a CCJ (they are not)
3. they imply that CCJs affect credit ratings (which of course they don't if you pay within a month and have it removed from the register)

In circumstances where the defendent has been willing to engage and expressed a willingness to payu once a court has determined the outcome, this seems very unreasonabel behaviour.  I know that the whole process is automated but that wouldn't seem to be any sort of excuse!

Blindside6

Coupon-mad said:

No. They are allowed to pursue a debt they reasonably believe is owed.

That is incorrect: There is no exemption from the Protection of Harassment Act, 1997 for debt collection companies that harass motorists, particularly those whom repeatedly make false threats of CCJs and bailiff visits and removing cars. Either by way of Part 1(1) criminal offence or Part 3 (1) civil tort. One day, a driver or keeper with substantial wealth will take on one of the debt collection agencies and succeed in court. With the shockwaves that would send around the PPCs, and their coterie of incestuous agencies, life would change for the better for so many motorists in the UK. Hope this assists.