|
Post by naughtyfox on May 10, 2018 12:06:19 GMT
Copied from Another Place: "District Enforcement Limited is based in Derbyshire and has something of a reputation for its aggressive and threatening treatment of motorists in order to extract penalty charges for alleged overstaying at car parks where displayed signs (which are a requirement to form a contract) are not clear. They have lost a number of challenges to their dubious practices in court and been criticised by a judge. The sole director of the company is Mr Danylo Kurpil who it appears has rather cunningly also become a director of The River Thames Alliance in order to now extend his personal enrichment from unlawful so-called "parking fines" by extracting ever-increasing penalty charges by means of threats to users of River Thames moorings owned privately or by the Environment Agency or councils who are members of the River Thames Alliance. A clearer example of conflict of interest would be hard to imagine. You should write once, and once only, to Mr Kurpil stating that in the circumstances you have described his "mooring charge notice" has no basis in law and that you will not be making any payment or responding to further threats." www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/96266-district-enforcement-mooring-fine-reading/&
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 10, 2018 12:30:28 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2018 14:04:55 GMT
Slimy Ukrainians ?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 11, 2018 6:51:12 GMT
Absolutely! Soviet Mafia-wannabees finding the British a soft touch: "District Enforcement hit the streets a couple of years ago founded by three recent graduates of Staffordshire University law school. They boldly stated at their formation that they had "the" answer to enforcing private parking tickets but there has been little evidence of that and so well have they done that one of the three has jumped ship and gone back to graphic design. It is thought that the so-called answer they had was to use what is known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order. Such orders can be obtained from a county court to oblige third parties (such as car owners, it is claimed) to disclose the names and addresses of the people the applicant wants to be pursue. Unfortunately these order were designed to be used to obtain documentary evidence and how many of use keep a written record of when our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, spouses and partners use our car? Exactly. One private parking company tried twice last year to obtain a NPO against the same private individual to get them to disclose who was driving the car at the time of an alleged breach of contract. The judge threw out the applications on both occasions. To our knowledge here DE have never actually sought a NPO."
|
|
|
Post by erivers on May 11, 2018 8:55:54 GMT
The need to try and use NPO's to obtain drivers' details to recover parking penalty charges was superseded by Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In return for banning wheel-clamping it allowed the private parking companies to access DVLA data on the vehicle's registered keeper and give him/her the opportunity to name the driver at the time of the 'offfence'. If the information was not provided then the registered keeper could be held liable.
But there are conditions under which the DVLA RK data can be accessed. The parking company must be a member of a recognised trade association that operates an 'independent' appeals service and sets a maximum penalty charge. There are also strict conditions over service of notice, either by on-vehicle ticketing or by post within (I believe) 14 days of the alleged infringement before a registered keeper can be held responsible. DVLA data must also not be passed on to a third-party or, for instance, sold on to a debt collector. Even with those safeguards in place there are still countless abuses as the motoring forums record. One large and particularly aggressive and suspect operator, UKPC, has recently been banned from accessing DVLA data and quite rightly so.
But for waterways users there are no such safeguards: No independent appeals service, no maximum penalties, no obligations on how notice of an 'offence' must be served and no specific proper control over access and use of data. Section 4 of the PoFA 2012 has no relevance here. Details of registered boat owners can, it seems, be easily obtained from the navigation authority with no need to show proper evidence of any 'offence'.
Obviously, faced with increasing concern and challenges in their dealings with motorists people like our friend Danylo have seen a great opportunity to extend their attempts to make money by extortion and threats to users of the waterways, where no such controls are in place.
Our navigation authorities, too weak or just too incompetent and seemingly incapable of applying the legal remedies given to them by Parliament, are now complicit in allowing a bunch of ex-wheel clamping rogues to make up the rules as they go along and extort money from boaters.
The greatest shame in all of this is that money paid for mooring by way of properly authorised charges and reasonable overstay penalties is being diverted away from the navigation authorities where it could be used to help improve facilities into the grubby little hands of the likes of Danylo, intent on making mooring as difficult as possible in order to line their own pockets.
|
|
|
Post by Phil on May 11, 2018 18:56:32 GMT
The need to try and use NPO's to obtain drivers' details to recover parking penalty charges was superseded by Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In return for banning wheel-clamping it allowed the private parking companies to access DVLA data on the vehicle's registered keeper and give him/her the opportunity to name the driver at the time of the 'offfence'. If the information was not provided then the registered keeper could be held liable. But there are conditions under which the DVLA RK data can be accessed. The parking company must be a member of a recognised trade association that operates an 'independent' appeals service and sets a maximum penalty charge. There are also strict conditions over service of notice, either by on-vehicle ticketing or by post within (I believe) 14 days of the alleged infringement before a registered keeper can be held responsible. DVLA data must also not be passed on to a third-party or, for instance, sold on to a debt collector. Even with those safeguards in place there are still countless abuses as the motoring forums record. One large and particularly aggressive and suspect operator, UKPC, has recently been banned from accessing DVLA data and quite rightly so. But for waterways users there are no such safeguards: No independent appeals service, no maximum penalties, no obligations on how notice of an 'offence' must be served and no specific proper control over access and use of data. Section 4 of the PoFA 2012 has no relevance here. Details of registered boat owners can, it seems, be easily obtained from the navigation authority with no need to show proper evidence of any 'offence'. Obviously, faced with increasing concern and challenges in their dealings with motorists people like our friend Danylo have seen a great opportunity to extend their attempts to make money by extortion and threats to users of the waterways, where no such controls are in place. Our navigation authorities, too weak or just too incompetent and seemingly incapable of applying the legal remedies given to them by Parliament, are now complicit in allowing a bunch of ex-wheel clamping rogues to make up the rules as they go along and extort money from boaters. The greatest shame in all of this is that money paid for mooring by way of properly authorised charges and reasonable overstay penalties is being diverted away from the navigation authorities where it could be used to help improve facilities into the grubby little hands of the likes of Danylo, intent on making mooring as difficult as possible in order to line their own pockets. Whilst everything you have put is correct, it is also to the boaters benefit as the legislation requiring a vehicle registered keeper to disclose driver details does not apply to boats or waterways. For this reason if a boat owner is pursued all he or she has to do is write back to the company concerned and inform them that they did not moor the boat at that location and that therefore no contract exists between the parties. The boat owner does not need to provide details of who did moor the boat, and there is I believe no legislation that can force them to do so.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 12, 2018 11:00:09 GMT
No - the boat owner just needs to write to Danny-glow boy and tell him to fuck off.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 12, 2018 21:07:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 13, 2018 14:58:14 GMT
A mate was surprised to get a "parking fine." when he had not seen a notice on the window. Apparently, the latest scam by parking enforcers is to ticket and take photo then remove ticket and bin it, so you don't get the option to pay the reduced rate. Mate thinks he is ok anyway as they didn't get his middle name right.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 13, 2018 15:29:14 GMT
What's the difference between a Nigerian scammer and an Ukrainian scammer? “Thanks to our high rate of enforcement, the land owner can meet their obligations without the need for the coercive and misleading tactics used by typical parking enforcement companies.” says District Enforcement. Yeah, right. www.staffs.ac.uk/news/law-graduates-aim-to-clean-up-the-parking-industry-tcm4234703.jspHow much are CRT / EA using these cowboys? On the other hand, just give Tesco's in Reading a miss, they won't cry if a few boaters don't want to pay £9.50 to walk in their door.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 13, 2018 15:37:45 GMT
so you don't get the option to pay the reduced rate. Why would you even want to do that? District Enforcement has already been criticised by a judge for their less-than-truthful approach.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 13, 2018 19:51:25 GMT
A mate was surprised to get a "parking fine." when he had not seen a notice on the window. Apparently, the latest scam by parking enforcers is to ticket and take photo then remove ticket and bin it, so you don't get the option to pay the reduced rate. Mate thinks he is ok anyway as they didn't get his middle name right. if it's parking eye. I would get your mate to look into it a bit more. if it's one of the others, he may just get lots of threatening letters in red. the name being spelled wrong makes no difference at all. I would say it's spelt wrong on the v5.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 14, 2018 9:44:54 GMT
It would be interesting to know the deal between cart and district enforcement. How much do cart pay them to police boats without mooring permits using carts long term online moorings. I can't imagine there was much of a problem with boats staying on cart moorings without permission, so seems like a sledge hammer to crack a nut unless of course maybe you where planing to privatise the whole enforcment department? You might need a reason to start the privatisation process, but it looks like that's underway. I have never seen any district enforcement personnel on the towpath, so I wonder where they get the imformation they act upon? It would be very interesting to know if they have managed to extract money from boaters yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2018 10:03:29 GMT
It's unlikely that you will ever know the financial arrangements as that would be considered commercially confident. A FOI request might produce some results if carefully worded - might show up whether CRT actually pay any outside enforcement company to monitor and/or enforce short term mooring arrangements but see if anyone here has advice on wording i.e. Allan/Nigel (detailed discussion if it happened would be best by PM). Many/some of these contracts used to be cost neutral or a revenue earner for the landowner.
|
|
|
Post by sabcat on May 14, 2018 15:19:19 GMT
I suspect this will work in the same way that the parking scam works. Lots of letters threatening higher and higher charges if you don't pay, debt collector letters and then finally a letter from the county court business centre with claim details on. Defend it they fuck off, a few quid lighter for having had to pay the court. Of course a lot of people shit themselves when they get the court papers and pay up so sadly, it's a viable business model.
|
|