QDR Solicitors £50 admin charge - advice required

letom

BlueonBlue said:

Thing is QDR are scammers profiting from lies, threats and imtimidation along with all the other robo claimers with the same buisness model preying on the public .

They are sending letters to RKs of vehicles where the driver has not paid for fuel. People need to get a grip, how is this a scam. What do people expect, honest question, what do you think is reasonable? Run a business where you incur costs of chasing people who don't pay for fuel with no deterrence...

Everyone is acting like there is zero operational cost involved with chasing people who don't pay for fuel. Let's just list a few:

Cost to review CCTV to identify the car (employee time taken)
Cost to provide details to QDR
Cost incurred by QDR to find the details and put it into a template letter, there will be some human verification at QDRs side 
Cost to arrange post
Cost to field contact numbers
Operational costs of cases taken to court and lost but which must be spread out across all cases

Profit for QDR - after all their costs they're unlikely to be making a lot of profit, if we assume there's only £18-50 of extra money to chase, that's peanuts.

Again, get a grip. Unless it's a case, which we had recently, where Sainsbury's own system failed to make the payment, the OP is at fault and isn't being scammed.

OP I would go and see if you can pay at the Sainsbury's, use the excuse of the pay at pump, if they continue to refuse then pay up with QDR. Regardless of what anyone on parking forum says, the facts are you can be taken to court as the RK, it might not be economical for them but they can take you to small claims court. A judge could require you to disclose the driver. You might win all of this. It all rests on your appetite for risk.

paul_c123

letom said:

...... A judge could can require you to disclose the driver.............

Under what basis in law, can a judge require you to disclose the driver?

letom

paul_c123 said:

letom said:

...... A judge could can require you to disclose the driver.............

Under what basis in law, can a judge require you to disclose the driver?

Good point, specific performance doesn't occur in small claims however a judge simply asks if you were the driver, in this case you either lie or are evasive. At which point, if don't they believe you then they are perfectly entitled to start awarding the claimants administrative costs. None of this might happen, who knows. Going through litigation is a question of appetite for risk on all sides.

therealbadders

Mildly_Miffed said:

There's no suggestion of a criminal offence being prosecuted.

There is a civil debt.
There is video evidence that a car registered to the OP filled up without paying.
There will be video evidence of the OP being the driver.
The OP admits that it was them...

The OP unequivocally owes the money.
That debt would not have reached the OP for settlement without QDR incurring costs...
The OP admits this, and is willing to pay both fuel and a fee...

The argument is only over whether £18 or £50 is reasonable.

If the OP does not wish to pay the £50, then the question becomes one of how much a small claim court would order the OP to pay...

By the time it reaches that point, far more costs will have been incurred. Equally importantly, far more time and blood pressure on the OP's part will have been involved.

The question is one of how much time and blood pressure the OP is willing to expend in order to save a figure they put at just £32...

Is it an expensive lesson in basic life admin? Yes.
Is it a lesson the OP really shouldn't need to be taught? Equally, yes.

This is the most sensible and reasonable summary. Thank you.

For anyone new to the thread 'The argument is only over whether £18 or £50 is reasonable' is exactly the point and sense check whether anyone else had received a £50 admin fee. 

GDB2222

letom said:

BlueonBlue said:

Thing is QDR are scammers profiting from lies, threats and imtimidation along with all the other robo claimers with the same buisness model preying on the public .

They are sending letters to RKs of vehicles where the driver has not paid for fuel. People need to get a grip, how is this a scam. What do people expect, honest question, what do you think is reasonable? Run a business where you incur costs of chasing people who don't pay for fuel with no deterrence...

Everyone is acting like there is zero operational cost involved with chasing people who don't pay for fuel. Let's just list a few:

Cost to review CCTV to identify the car (employee time taken)
Cost to provide details to QDR
Cost incurred by QDR to find the details and put it into a template letter, there will be some human verification at QDRs side 
Cost to arrange post
Cost to field contact numbers
Operational costs of cases taken to court and lost but which must be spread out across all cases

Profit for QDR - after all their costs they're unlikely to be making a lot of profit, if we assume there's only £18-50 of extra money to chase, that's peanuts.

Again, get a grip. Unless it's a case, which we had recently, where Sainsbury's own system failed to make the payment, the OP is at fault and isn't being scammed.

OP I would go and see if you can pay at the Sainsbury's, use the excuse of the pay at pump, if they continue to refuse then pay up with QDR. Regardless of what anyone on parking forum says, the facts are you can be taken to court as the RK, it might not be economical for them but they can take you to small claims court. A judge could require you to disclose the driver. You might win all of this. It all rests on your appetite for risk.

Of course there's a cost for QDR, but that doesn't automatically entitle them to recoup that cost from the OP. What makes you think they can?

paul_c123

letom said:

paul_c123 said:

letom said:

...... A judge could can require you to disclose the driver.............

Under what basis in law, can a judge require you to disclose the driver?

Good point, specific performance doesn't occur in small claims however a judge simply asks if you were the driver, in this case you either lie or are evasive. At which point, if don't they believe you then they are perfectly entitled to start awarding the claimants administrative costs. None of this might happen, who knows. Going through litigation is a question of appetite for risk on all sides.

In the OP's specific case, I believe they have already (maybe tacitly) admitted they were the driver and non-payer, so it doesn't apply in this scenario.

However more generally (and I believe it is useful to others in a similar situation), there is no requirement for the RK to disclose the driver when one of these letters pops through the letterbox, unlike a number of motoring offences which are subject to s.172 declaration of who was driving at the time, or requirement to furnish information to the police if not the driver. Also unlike most parking infringements (ie those done by one of the major trade bodies who should be following a code of practice), there is no liability of the registered keeper if the driver is unknown.

Of course, we don't have the 5th Amendment here, but a broadly similar principle could apply if one chose their words carefully in a courtroom setting (or a judge session, more likely over Zoom or telephone these days).

TooManyPoints

They are sending letters to RKs of vehicles where the driver has not paid for fuel. People need to get a grip, how is this a scam.

A “scam” is not the correct term. They’re employing what I would call “sharp practice”.

They are giving the recipients of their letters the clear impression that they are liable for debts they may not have incurred, solely on the basis that they are the Registered Keepers of vehicles. This is a passage from one of their letters:

“You are the current registered keeper of this vehicle and we require you to make full payment of this debt within 7 days.”

They make no attempt to say on what basis they make the claim. They will not attempt to make further enquiries, even when they are informed by the RK they are not responsible and offer to tell them who is.

It is no different to the scenario where a person walks out of Sainsbury’s supermarket with goods without paying (whether deliberately or in error). He loads the goods into the boot of a car which is spotted by the staff. Sainsbury’s then employ QDR to recover the debt and they chase the RK of that car for payment.

If they took that matter to court they would be required to satisfy the court that the RK is responsible for the debt. So they would with these alleged “drive-offs”. In many cases (though I accept, probably not this one) they would have difficulty doing that. That's if they could be bothered; but they are unlikely to try. 

The outcome of one of the earlier cases on here is interesting:

"I eventually emailed Sainsbury's customer services who got me through to the team responsible for the filling stations they agreed I can settle up. They couldn't take payment directly but notified BOSS (British Oil Security Syndicate) and I made payment over the phone without having to pay the admin fees.”

This incident occurred because of Sainsbury’s faulty equipment. It would not have happened but for that. Yes, the driver made a mistake. But Sainsbury’s should take a share of the blame and the best way they can demonstrate their goodwill is to simply accept payment of the sum they are owed.

Mildly_Miffed

therealbadders said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

There's no suggestion of a criminal offence being prosecuted.

There is a civil debt.
There is video evidence that a car registered to the OP filled up without paying.
There will be video evidence of the OP being the driver.
The OP admits that it was them...

The OP unequivocally owes the money.
That debt would not have reached the OP for settlement without QDR incurring costs...
The OP admits this, and is willing to pay both fuel and a fee...

The argument is only over whether £18 or £50 is reasonable.

If the OP does not wish to pay the £50, then the question becomes one of how much a small claim court would order the OP to pay...

By the time it reaches that point, far more costs will have been incurred. Equally importantly, far more time and blood pressure on the OP's part will have been involved.

The question is one of how much time and blood pressure the OP is willing to expend in order to save a figure they put at just £32...

Is it an expensive lesson in basic life admin? Yes.
Is it a lesson the OP really shouldn't need to be taught? Equally, yes.

This is the most sensible and reasonable summary. Thank you.

For anyone new to the thread 'The argument is only over whether £18 or £50 is reasonable' is exactly the point and sense check whether anyone else had received a £50 admin fee. 

So, let me repeat that question...

How much time, effort, blood pressure are you willing to put into a £32 difference...?

Remember - they may just shrug and say "we tried - if you don't want to pay, we'll see you in court".

TooManyPoints

How much time, effort, blood pressure are you willing to put into a £32 difference...?

The answer to that from most people will be "very little". And that's why outfits such as QDR prosper. Then those same people bleat about how motorists are being "fleeced".

Mildly_Miffed

TooManyPoints said:

How much time, effort, blood pressure are you willing to put into a £32 difference...?

The answer to that from most people will be "very little". And that's why outfits such as QDR prosper. Then those same people bleat about how motorists are being "fleeced".

Easily avoided, by paying for your petrol before you drive off.