QDR are clueless

Coupon-mad

"South African customer experience and collections outsourcing specialist."

Sounds like the motley crew that @ChirpyChicken tells us handles calls about DCB Ltd efforts in Scottish parking cases.

Maybe because nobody is personally accountable if the non-UK call centre lie to consumers?

Jame4ters

The wording on the letter quoted in the OP will scare a lot of people into agreeing which is presumably the real reason for the wording used

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81919254#Comment_81919254

Indeed

A lot of ZZPS calls are out sourced to South Africa as does most dcbl calls now

They are so rude compared to those in the UK

patient_dream

The public has the right to expect a legal to know what it is doing.

Ir seems thart QDR really are clueless and one must rely on their claim being correct

Before a court hearing, QDR would be wise to discontinue to save them getting a severe spanking.

YES QDR AEW RUNNING SCARED

Le_Kirk

operational scalability

Sounds like some words we used to use at work when playing buzz-word bingo!

Gr1pr

Check this out

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6645104/received-letter-from-qdr-solicitors

ChrisBristol88

Hi - that's my post above. This is what I said in the final post on this topic:

Hi, I submitted my response to the defence and QDR have now come back saying they wish to strike out and amend paragraphs 2 and 4 of the particulars. These are:

The PCN contravention was
INSUFFICIENT PAID TIME. The Defendant is
the registered keeper and the
driver of the Vehicle. The Defendant is in
breach of the terms and conditions and is
liable to pay £170.00 parking charge

And

The Defendant is responsible for payment of charges and costs incurred in connection
with the Contract in accordance with Schedule 4 of the 2012 Act (Charges).

So they are adding the bit in bold about me being the driver, and they are removing the section above which has been struck out.

Are these important? I have not said who was driving at the time, because I did not know and in my defence I said "The Defendant is unable to recall who may have been driving on an unremarkable date and unspecified time and no evidence has been produced." They later produced a photo which shows the driver. Before this photo was received I would have had no way of knowing whether it was me driving or the other insured person on this car, as we were both there and take turns in driving.

patient_dream

QDR SAY ….

liable to pay £170.00 parking charge ?

WRONG and very misleading for a judge. BUT everyone knows the added fake £70 is the work of ZZPS which is against the Supreme Court ruling

ChirpyChicken

The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle with number plate(Vehicle)
and is pursued in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (2012
Act).

The Defendant is responsible for payment of charges and costs incurred in connection
with the Contract in accordance with Schedule 4 of the 2012 Act (Charges). The Defendant
has not notified the Claimant of any transfer of liability for the Charges to a named driver
of the Vehicle.

They are wanting to strike out the bit about keeper liability

James_Poisson

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81919442#Comment_81919442

Yes South Africans can be to the point😁

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guZVRb24Xvk