Printfriendly

Thursday, 25 July 2013

Give me your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle

This blog entry was previously titled 'CP Plus play parking poker with The Prankster'. The Prankster would like to thank ParkingCowboys for this much better title.

The Prankster was very excited to receive his first ever letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd.

It seems that CP Plus have decided not to fold in their latest game of parking poker, and have upped the stakes to £120 and the threat of court action from Sarah Conner of Debt Recovery Plus Ltd (who for obvious reasons, The Prankster will now refer to as 'The Terminator')

As The Prankster has already asked for a POPLA code twice (the second time practically begging) he has decided to overbid with a complaint to the British Parking Association Limited, to deny the debt to DRP and to ask The Terminator to refer it back to her client.

As the matter is now subject to investigation by the BPA Ltd, The Prankster will refrain from further comment at this time.


Posted by at

7 comments:

  1. Custard Pie25 July 2013 at 00:33

    You'll be back no doubt LOL

    I have to pick you up though Dear Boy on the fact that Miss Conner was never The Terminator Herself, but was protected from said machine, which in this case, seems to have get rather confused. Perhaps they are travelling back in time to ensure that PoPLA codes can not be issued, thus ensuring the future for PPC (aka SkyNet) ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Parking Prankster25 July 2013 at 02:41

      The Prankster stands corrected ;-)

      Delete
    2. Ewan Hoosami25 July 2013 at 03:27

      Although Sarah Connor was never a terminator, she was impersonated by the T1000 towards the end of 'Judgement Day.' The Pranksternator then froze her incorrectly issued parking charge with liquid nitrogen and shattered it with his semi-automatic POPLA appeal.

      (Any resemblance to a correctly issued parking charge is purely coincidental.)

      Delete
  2. Mr Mustard25 July 2013 at 01:01

    I recommend a reading of the OFT's guidance on standard letters used by debt collectors.

    http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/cca/debt-collection

    It looks like as they ask for the address of the liable person then they seem to have breached this guidance:

    The OFT regards it as an unfair and oppressive business practice if letters threatening legal action are issued to individuals if the DCA is not reasonably certain that the address they have is the debtor's address.

    If enough people complain their licence will be in jeopardy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Parking Prankster25 July 2013 at 02:42

      Thank you Mr Mustard. The Prankster is now considering raising his bet even further.

      Delete
  3. Parking Prankster25 July 2013 at 02:49

    Um, when I said I would refrain from further comment, I didn't mean in my own comment section on the blog. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ewan Hoosami25 July 2013 at 03:14

    Many thanks for that excellent link Mr Mustard. Also considered oppressive is the practice of demanding payments where there is a dispute with the original creditor. In the sub link 'Debt Collection Guidance,' asking debtors to make contact on premium rate or special rate numbers is listed as an improper practice. There will of course be a great many other interesting points from this guidance. Good reading.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)