UKPC + DRp

[Micb1905]

hi everyone, I've received some smashing advice here before and would like some more help from you guys if possible!

 

my girlfriend has parked in her pre paid monthly space and her permit has fell off the dash

 

 

ukpc have gave her a ticket.

for some reason the letters have just piled up at her parents house until now.

 

 

last time i dealt with this promptly by asking for their pre estimate of loss

and a popla code etc but now this one is past that stage.

It has now been passed to DRP Debt Recovery Plus ltd demanding £160!

 

where do i go from here?

 

 

i can't use the ukpc website to appeal as it says its been passed on.

 

 

who do i contact and what do i say?

 

kind regards!

Michael

[armadillo71]

What exactly did you do here?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?423848-Ukpc-ticket-on-floor&p=4529033#post4529033

 

The rk is your girlfriend or her parents? What letters have piled up?

 

UKPC and DR+ will send the rk letters. Some will have big red writing on them.

 

That is all they will do.

[Micb1905]

I appealed to UKPC using the advice given by the other users and they eventually dropped it.

 

The rk is her mum. 1 initial NTK then a final reminder, then one from DRp for £160 and now a new one from DRp which I'm yet to see as it's it arrived yesterday at her house.

[DragonFly1967]

I appealed to UKPC using the advice given by the other users and they eventually dropped it.

 

The rk is her mum. 1 initial NTK then a final reminder, then one from DRp for £160 and now a new one from DRp which I'm yet to see as it's it arrived yesterday at her house.

 

It'll probably be this one (just with a different amount)

 

 

All fairly standard stuff, and nothing to worry about at all. DR+ are as bright and powerless as a blown lightbulb.

 

You'll be due another letter in a couple of weeks, offering you a "Reduced payment offer to avoid court proceedings"

 

 

If you really wanted to play with their heads, email DR+ and UKPC with an outline defence of what you'd be using in court should they (UKPC) be silly enough to go that far. As in, already paid for parking, and here's proof. Now put up or shut up.

[ericsbrother]

notice that they add a good few quid on for themselves without any lawful reason for doing so. Can report them for this but doubt if any regulatory body actually gives a stuff.

[Micb1905]

Just had this response from DRP

 

Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

As per the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice, Point 22.7, the time to challenge the charge has now expired and therefore access to the Independent Appeals Service (if applicable) is no longer available.

However, in order to resolve this matter, I will offer the following comments as to why this PCN was correctly issued and is still payable.

My findings

The site in question is subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout the area. Those signs state that drivers must clearly display a valid parking permit for the site. They also warn that failure to do so may result in the issue of a PCN.

On the date in question the vehicle was parked on the site but no valid permit was clearly displayed. This means that the terms and conditions were breached and a PCN was correctly and legitimately issued. I have attached photographic evidence for your own reference along with an example of the signage.

Amount charged

If you refer to the British Parking Association’s code of practice, you will discover that the sum in question is within what this body deems reasonable.

I would also draw your attention to the ruling made in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis and Wardley [2014] where it was ruled that the charges incurred were enforceable.

Fairness and consistency

I appreciate that you may be a permit holder; however it is the permit holders responsibility to ensure their permit is displayed at all times and, in the interests of fairness to all motorists, our company must adopt a consistent approach when enforcing Parking Charge Notices and therefore I am unable to cancel the PCN.

Harassment

Harassment has also been referred to and therefore I feel obliged to point out that under S1(3)© of The Harassment Act 1997, a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not be deemed so if the person who pursued it shows that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Under the circumstances our course of action has been entirely reasonable and in no way reaches the high threshold of harassment. Our company has legitimately pursued recompense for a breach of the terms and conditions attached to our client’s site.

What you need to do now

Please ensure that £160.00 is paid by 16th October 2014. Payment can be made online or by phone. Go to http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/pay or phone 0844 561 0965. You can find full details of how to pay on the reverse of the letter(s) sent.

What will happen if you do not pay what you owe

If the amount is not paid by the date shown above, we will recommend to our client that court action be taken by them to recover the outstanding balance.

If you do not intend to pay by the deadline, I draw your attention to the following important court ‘test’ case where judgment was entered for a parking company when the charge was disputed on multiple grounds. The senior judge found completely in the parking company’s favour: ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis & Wardley [2014].

A transcript of the case can be found at http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/debtor/judge.php.

What if you do not agree

Although any correspondence that does not provide further evidence will be noted and retained, I cannot guarantee that we will reply to it.

 

Kind Regards.

 

Susan Quinn

Collections Manager

Debt Recovery Plus Ltd

P.O. Box 411

Dukinfield

SK14 9DD

http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk

T: 0844 561 0965

F: 0161 339 5722

[DragonFly1967]

They're really clutching at straws by quoting ParkingLie v Beavis & Wardley. Apart from that fact that I think that at least one of the parties is appealing the decision, in his summing up, the judge said...

 

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This judgment is given on the joint trial of two small claims, in each case for the sum of £85 in

respect of a charge for overstaying at the car park of the Riverside Retail Park in Chelmsford; that car

park is managed by the Claimant company. Because the two Defendants raise similar defences, of

law rather than fact, and because there are many other similar cases pending in the courts of East

Anglia, and indeed the country as a whole, as Designated Civil Judge I have taken the unusual course

of hearing these two cases at first instance in the hope that this decision will assist the parties and

District Judges hearing similar cases in the future.

 

1.2 I should however emphasise:

 

a. that since I am a Circuit Judge not a High Court Judge, this decision has only persuasive force; (in other words, it's not binding on any other court)

b. that it is based on one particular set of the Claimant's standard notices and terms, which may have varied from time to time, a point which should be checked in other cases; (ParkingLie actually pay rent to the landlord for this particular car park)

c. that although Mr Foster, the Defendants' McKenzie friend, put his case clearly and well, especially in his very helpful written submissions, and although leading and junior counsel for the Claimant were of course conscious of their duty to the Court to inform it of all relevant authorities that might assist either side, still the Defendants did not have the benefit of professional assistance that might in another case produce different arguments and perhaps a different result.

 

Have a read of The Parking Prankster in relation to the Beavis/Wardley case. Link

[ericsbrother]

Case to be heard in CoA in Jan 2015

[f16]

Just had this response from DRP

 

Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

As per the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice, Point 22.7, the time to challenge the charge has now expired and therefore access to the Independent Appeals Service (if applicable) is no longer available.

However, in order to resolve this matter, I will offer the following comments as to why this PCN was correctly issued and is still payable.

My findings

The site in question is subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout the area. Those signs state that drivers must clearly display a valid parking permit for the site. They also warn that failure to do so may result in the issue of a PCN.

On the date in question the vehicle was parked on the site but no valid permit was clearly displayed. This means that the terms and conditions were breached and a PCN was correctly and legitimately issued. I have attached photographic evidence for your own reference along with an example of the signage.

Amount charged

If you refer to the British Parking Association’s code of practice, you will discover that the sum in question is within what this body deems reasonable.

I would also draw your attention to the ruling made in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis and Wardley [2014] where it was ruled that the charges incurred were enforceable.

Fairness and consistency

I appreciate that you may be a permit holder; however it is the permit holders responsibility to ensure their permit is displayed at all times and, in the interests of fairness to all motorists, our company must adopt a consistent approach when enforcing Parking Charge Notices and therefore I am unable to cancel the PCN.

Harassment

Harassment has also been referred to and therefore I feel obliged to point out that under S1(3)© of The Harassment Act 1997, a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not be deemed so if the person who pursued it shows that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Under the circumstances our course of action has been entirely reasonable and in no way reaches the high threshold of harassment. Our company has legitimately pursued recompense for a breach of the terms and conditions attached to our client’s site.

What you need to do now

Please ensure that £160.00 is paid by 16th October 2014. Payment can be made online or by phone. Go to http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/pay or phone 0844 561 0965. You can find full details of how to pay on the reverse of the letter(s) sent.

What will happen if you do not pay what you owe

If the amount is not paid by the date shown above, we will recommend to our client that court action be taken by them to recover the outstanding balance.

If you do not intend to pay by the deadline, I draw your attention to the following important court ‘test’ case where judgment was entered for a parking company when the charge was disputed on multiple grounds. The senior judge found completely in the parking company’s favour: ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis & Wardley [2014].

A transcript of the case can be found at http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/debtor/judge.php.

What if you do not agree

Although any correspondence that does not provide further evidence will be noted and retained, I cannot guarantee that we will reply to it.

 

Kind Regards.

 

Susan Quinn

Collections Manager

Debt Recovery Plus Ltd

P.O. Box 411

Dukinfield

SK14 9DD

http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk

T: 0844 561 0965

F: 0161 339 5722

 

Looks like you can "Wipe your backside" on that !!!!!!

[scouserat]

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but could the letter not be construed as trying to impersonate a judge or officer of the court? The language used such as "My findings" and the paragraph that follows sounds like something a judge may use in summarising a case. Could that not be construed as some sort of offence by DRP, merely down to the way they've worded it? If someone less knowledgeable or someone who was easily fooled read it they may believe it's already been "judged" (for want of a better word) by someone who actually has some authority.

[zydeco]

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but could the letter not be construed as trying to impersonate a judge or officer of the court? The language used such as "My findings" and the paragraph that follows sounds like something a judge may use in summarising a case. Could that not be construed as some sort of offence by DRP, merely down to the way they've worded it? If someone less knowledgeable or someone who was easily fooled read it they may believe it's already been "judged" (for want of a better word) by someone who actually has some authority.

 

that's how they reply when they're refusing your appeal, trying to sound official but not impersonating anybody other than a jobsworth who needs your money to carry on trying to get money out of motorists by s*amming them with fake parking tickets.

[ericsbrother]

For the last time, it doesnt matter what DR+ say about anything, they have no interest in any of this, they just get paid to send out letter so ignore them and they will go away.

[Meekyou]

Have you named the driver? did you email DRP as the Keeper or as yourself? You could get the Keeper to name someone as the driver, and thus reset the system, then an appeal to UKPC is allowed, if rejected PoPLA etc.

[Micb1905]

Driver has not been named, all correspondence has been as the RK