DRP > ZENITH > GLADSTONE Options

[jukedog]

Hi there,

Apologies, for the new thread on an old topic – but I’ve been through all the newbie threads/posts, and can’t find anything similar – so here we go.

Driver parked on a private dirt track by the side of the kids’ school, like any other normal day. Not sure if it’s allowed or not (no signs to say yay or nay), but all the school mum’s have been parking there for years without issue or consequence. We get back from a family holiday to find a letter from DRP asking for £160 for “parking within a restricted area”. The creditor is listed as CUP Enforcement. Wife says there has never been anything affixed to the windscreen, and no original PCN notice received through the post, which I would have expected from CUP. I am new to this (and normally just pay parking fines), so I (probably) do all the wrong things by first calling DRP for more information. I get nowhere, so then I write to them. I also try CUP, but end up in circles. So my letter goes to DRP.

My letter doesn’t admit anything, neither does it say who was driving. All I simply ask is if they can send me a copy of the original PCN notice which usually allows one to review the alleged infringement, and if one agrees, pay the charge promptly at a lower rate. My point is, that if the driver had parked incorrectly, and were fined, the driver would have just paid up. But I refuse to pay the higher rate of £160 if we never had a chance to review the alleged infringement in the first place, and pay the lower rate. I argued this on the phone, but was told that they did post out an earlier letter. We never received it, and I’m sure this was a lie to get more money – but they said that their franking stamp was proof of postage and also proof of it being received to me! So why didn’t they just re-send it then, with proof of that franking stamp? (they never did).

Anyway, bottom line – had they sent the first letter, or put something on the windscreen (neither of which they did) – I would have paid up £50 quid (or whatever the reduced rate was) and moved on. But not £160 – that is completely unreasonable if I never had the first chance. So since my first and only letter to DRP, I have ignored all subsequent correspondence from DRP, and also Zenith (about 5 or 6 letters) -- just to see what would happen, and also based on the advice from these type of forums.

However, I now have a letter from Gladstones Solicitors. This is still asking me to pay £160 to DRP, and the DRP phone number and reference (starts with a “4”) is all over the letter. They want £160 in 14 days. It mentions a case about “Beavis v Parking Eye (2015)”. Also, it is not threatening any court action, but it does say “our client now has the option to commence proceedings in the appropriate Civil Court”.

So, according to the forums – I ignore this one as well, but the inevitability is that I will eventually end up with court papers. So I am pre-empting that, and asking for some assistance from the good guys in here before that happens. Just so I am prepared in good time.

By the way, a few “no parking” signs had quietly gone up around the time of us receiving this DRP letter (my wife says she hasn't seen them, but I suspect they were there). The school mums all stopped parking there for a few weeks after they got word of our ticket, but now they are all back parking there again, even though the signs are still there! No-one is getting tickets. Seems we were unlucky. Perhaps the landowner has even asked the contractor (CUP?) to stop enforcing it now? No idea on this, but is probably worth me exploring I guess?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. And by the way, £160 is a lot of money, but I can afford to pay it, and will do so if you think I should to avoid the hassle and time, and risk of bad credit or something.

Best,
Jukedog

This post has been edited by jukedog: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 12:24

[Advertisement]

[nosferatu1001]

That letter isnt from GS. Its from DRP

EDIT YOUR POST. The driver must NOT be identified. EVER. DO THIS NOW.

[ostell]

So that's the letter from Gladstone that's not really a letter from Gladstones, purely DRP who have borrowed Gladstones heading.

Edit your post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred, use "the driver........" etc.

So the driver parked and the registered keeper, you, got the letters. Who are CUP?

So photographs of the new signs that have been put up might help.

Whatever gave them the idea of proof by franking stamps? Could be the drank on any old letter.

As you may have found out Zenith is the next desk in the DRP office. Look at the footing on the Zenith letter.

This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 12:04

[Redivi]

I suspect that the parking company is Close Unit Protection Services Ltd, a member of the British Parking Association
http://www.closeunitprotection.com/

Unusual because it's natural home is the Independent Parking Community that was originally formed by a group of bouncers, debt collectors and former clampers to avoid the requirement to meet the (low) standards of the BPA

The reality doesn't match the glossy website
The only case I've seen from them involved a road outside a row of shops and the sign was small piece of board placed in one of the awnings

You could send a short message to Gladstones

Dear Sirs

Ref (Parking Notice number)

I have received your letter dated ***

I deny any debt to (full name of CUP)
I was not the driver and the company has failed to meet the conditions of POFA to recover payment from me as the registered keeper

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not make any payment in the absence of successful legal action
Any further correspondence will be filed but I do not guarantee a reply

Yours Faithfully

When Gladstones ask for their reference number from the letter, you will know it was fake

[jukedog]

Post edited. Thank you.
And thanks for the early replies. I agree, this is a DRP letter on Gladstone headed paper. Scare tactics. Although I guess I could write to them as you say, to prove the fake.
Thing is, from what I've read - these are all automated letters, or 'roboclaims' as they refer to in here. No humans involved at this stage. It seems no circumstantial evidence (or any evidence) is acknowledged until it gets to court, so no real point in engaging with them until then. And if this does go to court, what is the defense? The driver really doesn't mind paying the reduced charge, if indeed this was an infringement. But the driver was never given the chance. The very first communication the driver got was from DRP asking for £160.
Anyway, not sure what the next step is, perhaps the following:

1. keep ignoring letters, wait for court papers, then:
a) write a defense and plead guilty but agree to paying just the reduced rate (whatever that was)
or
b) use some other defense approach to avoid paying anything at all (great, but not sure how that works)

2. Pay up £160 now and move on

3. Something else? ...any ideas?

[nosferatu1001]

The point is to use the PCN ref, not the DRP ref. If you use the former, they wont realise you have a fake GS letter from DRP.

Youve been told what to do. Ignore DRP. WRite to GS. Ignore anything bar a real LBA or claim form.

Loads of possible defences on signage, landowner authority, keeper liabiltiy assuming the driver was not identified. Your reading will have shown this.

Make sure you update your MSE thread as well.

[Redivi]

Even if CUP had met the conditions to recover payment from you as keeper, the maximum they can recover is the original parking charge

They can never recover the DRP addition

[jukedog]

Thanks again, but isn't all this just delaying the inevitable? It seems 100% certain that a real LBA or claim form is coming my way. What is the point of writing to Gladstones quoting a PCN ref? We know the letter is fake. Isn't that just a waste of time? I thought it best to simply focus on the defense, and I don't know what that is. Somehow, need to prove that CUP never sent the original PCN notice allowing the driver to review the infringement, with the option of paying early at a reduced rate. To which the driver would probably have agreed.

In simple terms, one is not disputing the infringement necessarily, but more the communication re: the PCN ....i.e. it was never sent; just a straight debt collectors letter for 160 quid. Not on, surely?

[nosferatu1001]

If you want to give up, give up

We know the letter is a fake
By writign you can prove to the court it is, and if GS take on the claim then they have to explain why theyre KNOWINGLY letting someone issue false isntruments. If you cannot see the blindingly obvious value in showing the claimants likely solicitors to be a bunch of crooks, Im not sure we can help you.

Defence with a C. At least set a UK spell check!

No, you dont have to prove that. You prove (by WS) that it was never received, and thus they cannot hold the keeper liable, and the Defendant Keeper has no liabillity as a result.

You do realise there is no regulation of this industry, its just an invoice, and an invoice has no set process, yes?

[Redivi]

It's not a waste of time
It gives the opportunity to include in a defence that CUP has employed a debt collector that sends letters pretending to be from a solicitor

There's been some discussion in a thread whether this amounts to an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 Section 2 but CUP won't like to explain it to a court
The aim is always to discourage the parking company from appearing in court to answer awkward questions

Your defence has a number of threads :

CUP doesn't have the legal capacity to take anyone to court unless its landowner contract says so
Even if it does, it can't take anyone to court for trespass - which is what a driver did if parking wasn't permitted
Failure to meet POFA
The driver's identity
The signs - if they're new they by definition weren't there before or were inadequate
The fake letters
The fake charges - do you seriously think it's paid £60 to DRP to collect £100, successful or not ?

This post has been edited by Redivi: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 - 13:20

[jukedog]

Ok. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm new to this, and was under the impression that this was 100% headed for the courts ...and therefore, wanted to get ready to defend it, not give up.

So what you're saying is, ignore the DRP letters ...BUT not this one because I can make Gladstones look unprofessional by proving they are allowing DRP to use their name as scare tactics for debt collectors. Which then puts me on the front foot - that right?

[Redivi]

Good summary