Tweet
DCA's withholding evidence
I have been contact by Debt Recovery Plus (DRP) regarding a Parking Fine from Euro Car Parks (ECP) I am not disputing the fine because it was clear that I was there longer than the allowed time.......however I did not receive the 2 notices from ECP and the first I knew about it was when I got the first notice from DRP at £150.00. I requested proof of the notice and was clearly told they did not need to prove anything to me under the Interpretations Act, which literally states the sender does not need to prove delivery of the letter rather the recipient has to prove non delivery of the letter, (I know only in the UK) anyway after a much heated conversation they emailed me the front page of each of the letters when there was clearly more pages of each notice. I then researched the Interpretations Act and it clearly states that the sender has to be able to demonstrate 1) the letter was addressed correctly 2) paid postage 3) actual postage. so I called again and it must be a requirement of employment within this company that you have to be proficient in rudeness to be employed. I was told by a manager that they do have the evidence of postage by way of a franked envelope but they where under no obligation to send it to me.
I took a minute and asked him to allow me to recap on what he had just told me:-
I have asked for proof that the letter was in fact posted, if this is supplied I will pay the £150 now without any question, you confirmed just now that you have that evidence by way of a franked envelope but you will NOT send this to me and will produce it when we are taken to court......when we are taken to court and such evidence is produced it is clear the debt is valid and payable, no disputes there but if it goes to court I will then be liable for all legal costs & interest, as please allow to understand that this is the preferred action and intention of your company.
His response was simply - YES
So I have 2 questions here
1) Is his actions warranted to purposely withhold evidence which if he supplies it now I will settle - I have been told this is "malicious intent"
2) The original fine was £90 discounted to £40 if paid within 2 weeks which I would have paid had I received the notice, by the time the notice from DRP came to me it is now £150, I have read up that they should be adding "reasonable" collection fees, something in the region of 8% not the 60% that this is.
I took a minute and asked him to allow me to recap on what he had just told me:-
I have asked for proof that the letter was in fact posted, if this is supplied I will pay the £150 now without any question, you confirmed just now that you have that evidence by way of a franked envelope but you will NOT send this to me and will produce it when we are taken to court......when we are taken to court and such evidence is produced it is clear the debt is valid and payable, no disputes there but if it goes to court I will then be liable for all legal costs & interest, as please allow to understand that this is the preferred action and intention of your company.
His response was simply - YES
So I have 2 questions here
1) Is his actions warranted to purposely withhold evidence which if he supplies it now I will settle - I have been told this is "malicious intent"
2) The original fine was £90 discounted to £40 if paid within 2 weeks which I would have paid had I received the notice, by the time the notice from DRP came to me it is now £150, I have read up that they should be adding "reasonable" collection fees, something in the region of 8% not the 60% that this is.
