Indigo PCN letter - now moved on to QDR Solicitors??

[TinkersJF]

Hi All,
I have received a letter from QDR Solicitors requesting a payment for a PCN issued last August (09.08.17)
I received the first notification for this on the 5th of February for the parking offense just shy of the 6 month cut off. I waited until after the 9th and replied with a challenging letter questioning certain areas. I have done this previously and have had no follow ups. However this time I received a letter from QDR stating they had been appointed by ZZPS (who didn't issue the first letter) to recover the debt. I replied wit the first letter sent and another challenging letter. They have again replied stating that the violation is actually under Section 219 blah blah blah. They require a payment within 14 days. Any advice on my next approach would be great. I can type out all correspondence if needed.
Rather frustrating as the first letter sent to us was just under 6 months after the offense!! The driver has never been named and it is a company vehicle so we reply as the company only.

Thanks in advance

[ostell]

So this is private parking? Have you still got the first notice that was sent to you? If you have can you post it up sutably redacted. What is the 6 month cut off you mention?

Without knowing the full story it would seem that QDR are suggesting that they are acting for ZZPS, a debt collector, who are themselves acting for a Parking Company. ZZPS cannot instruct a solicitor to take action.

[TinkersJF]

Hi Ostell, Thanks for the reply:
Please see the letter sent on the 1st Feb this year.
I have also attached photos of further letters:

[ostell]

Ask them to explain why they are continuing to harass you more than 6 months after the alleged breach of the byelaws when there is a 6 month limitation to bring the case to a magistrate. Also ask them to point out where in the byelaws is it stated that failure to display is an offence. Ask them to explain why they are threatening to take action against the registered keeper of the vehicle when this is not relevant land for the purpose of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore there can be no keeper liability. The only action they can take is against the driver at the time and as the keeper is a body corporate they can be no doubt that a body corporate could not have been the driver.

Point out this is harassment, as per Ferguson v British Gas an leaves them open to damages. This also reeks of demanding blackmail money for not taking criminal proceedings for an alleged criminal act.

See what comes back.

[TinkersJF]

Great thanks Ostell I will send another letter noting these facts.