Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday’s ace investigator, fighting readers corners, revealing the truth that lies behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have been left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below.
Long time coming: Six years ago, a Junior Minister – Rishi Sunak – promised to launch a fair code of practice for car park operators
Mrs J.H. writes: My 82-year-old father [Mr C] is getting so upset about demands and court documents sent to a Mr Stroud at my father’s home address.
The demands are from car park company Parkingeye, which has used DCB Legal to get a court judgment for £304.
My father has lived at the same address for 40 years and no one named Stroud has lived there.
Tony Hetherington replies: This is just another example of how car park operators, their debt collection chums, and their legal pals, find it easier to churn out demands and threats than to do a decent job. Once they get someone in their sights, even if it is the wrong person, or the wrong address, their wheels keep turning.
Your father has become a target for Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited, based in Runcorn in Cheshire, and its sister company DCB Legal. He told them the car registration shown on their demands is not his, and he has never heard of the car owner, Mr Stroud. The demands continued, and he reported them to the police, but got nowhere. He contacted the DVLA, but this had no effect either.
When you wrote to me, you said that your father was so scared bailiffs might arrive, that he was actually thinking of paying the £304 so he could sleep easy. Not that this would have worked. The same bunch were also demanding a further £349 which the same Mr Stroud is said to owe insurance brokers.
I put all this to Yasmin Mia, who, according to the watchdog Solicitors Regulation Authority, is the compliance officer at DCB Legal, tasked with ensuring correct legal conduct at the firm. I asked her to comment on why her firm continued to issue demands and threats, even when told that no one named Stroud lived at your father’s home. And why was DCB Legal simply ignoring repeated warnings that they were frightening an innocent pensioner so badly?
Yasmin Mia and DCB Legal failed to offer any answers. And this raised another question: had they even told their client Parkingeye about your father’s protests? Parkingeye checked the original Parking Charge Notice and told me there was no sign of anything your father had told DCB Legal. I told Parkingeye that I had made my own enquiries.
I gave them your father’s name, address, date of birth, and confirmation he had been on the local electoral register for many years. I added that in all those records there was not a single sign anyone named Stroud had ever lived at the same address. And I asked Parkingeye to produce whatever evidence it held to show the mysterious Mr Stroud did live there.
After some to-ing and fro-ing, in which Parkingeye produced not a shred of proof linking Mr Stroud to your father’s address, it told me: ‘When we became aware of the issue, we quickly notified DCBL to stop any further correspondence to Mr C’s address.’
Parkingeye refused to say exactly when it became aware, or when it called off DCBL. It did say that your father’s address was supplied by the DVLA, but refused to explain why this had never been double-checked after your father protested. All of which demonstrates that car park companies and their enforcers can do as they like.
Meanwhile, the Government fails miserably to act. Six years ago, a Junior Minister promised to launch a fair code of practice for car park operators. That Junior Minister is now the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. But his fair code of practice is still nowhere to be seen.
Smart meter came back from the dead
R.C. writes: My wife noticed that our electricity bill from Utility Warehouse (UW) started to show smart meter readings. We have never had a smart meter.
We contacted UW but customer service staff insisted that readings are done automatically at their end.
Bizarre: Utility Warehouse customer service staff insisted that meter readings are done automatically at their end
Tony Hetherington replies: This was bizarre. You had no smart meter. You never supplied meter readings to UW. And no meter reader ever called. Yet somehow, UW was able to bill you.
The explanation goes back several years to one of the first huge problems with smart meters. Many of the early meters did not allow customers to switch from one supplier to another.
If the customer did switch supplier, the smart meter became a traditional ‘dumb’ meter. And this is exactly what your meter was – an old smart meter that was dumb when you joined UW in 2017.
From 2021 onwards, the Government introduced a scheme to allow these old smart meters to use the same network as newer models. This allowed UW to revive your smart meter and start accepting its readings.
UW has now reviewed all your meter readings. Your monthly payments have been cut from £199 to £145, with a goodwill payment of £75 credited to your account as well.
If you believe you are the victim of financial wrongdoing, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY or email tony.hetherington@mailonsunday.co.uk. Because of the high volume of enquiries, personal replies cannot be given. Please send only copies of original documents, which we regret cannot be returned.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.
