Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Gin and Milk
    • By Gin and Milk 29th Sep 16, 4:46 PM
    • 216Posts
    • 246Thanks
    Gin and Milk
    I WON!!! Request for popla refused despite quoting legislation, what to do now?
    • #1
    • 29th Sep 16, 4:46 PM
    I WON!!! Request for popla refused despite quoting legislation, what to do now? 29th Sep 16 at 4:46 PM
    Hi,

    I recently emailed a template letter from the sticky to Minster Baywatch to appeal a parking charge which I had previously ignored requesting a PoPLA. Please see below:

    "I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.

    Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation and you have omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    Please note: "Changes in EU law last year say that appeals should be allowed (Alternative Dispute Resolution) for up to a year."

    "It is the will of Parliament, as a result of the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that ADRs must imminently be made available for not less than a year."

    I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply."

    This is the reply I received today:

    "Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding Parking Charge Notice 121883.

    Further to its contents please be advised that the signage displayed on this site is fully compliant and meet the requirements stipulated by the British Parking Associations Code of Practice, furthermore the Pay and Display machine located on this site was prominent in relation to where the vehicle was parked (please see image attached).

    With regards to ownership of this land, we are employed on behalf of the landowner to conduct this enforcement. The document affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle gave very clear instructions on how to challenge or Appeal this Notice and stipulated the timeframes permitted by current Legislation in which to do so. As nothing was actioned on this Notice it has now escalated to a Debt Recovery level and the Charge amount has increased.

    We are not legally obliged to supply you with any personal information regarding our Client, we will of course present this information in Court should you wish to proceed in this manner.

    Please also be advised that whilst I note you remarks referring to your correspondence as an Appeal, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that you are permitted 28-days in which to Appeal this Notice, as this timescale has lapsed, I must advise you that this communication will not be recognised as an Appeal.

    There are now two options available to you, you can pay the Parking Charge Notice at the current prevailing rate of £155.00, or on 21st October 2016 this Notice will be passed to Gladstones Solicitors with the request that Legal action be initiated against you in order to satisfy this Debt.

    Yours sincerely


    Charlotte"

    As you can see, Charlotte (no surname) has flatly refused my request and has also disregarded the quotes about the EU and the will of parliament. She also sent me a copy of the charge notice which also states that payments by credit / debit cards incur a 4% surcharge!

    I'm really angry now. I tried to buy a ticket at the time but was unable to do so because of their machines. Obviously I haven't mentioned any of that to them, otherwise I am admitting I was the driver, but does anyone have any advice? Do I just go for the second appeal letter as posted in the sticky or do I have to fork out £155 (which obviously I really don't want to do).

    Thanks
    Last edited by Gin and Milk; 31-01-2017 at 2:41 PM.
Page 14
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Mar 17, 11:01 AM
    • 5,538 Posts
    • 7,123 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Thanks beamerguy.
    I have a feeling their response will be to refer me to Minster Baywatch which is why I wondered whether or not I should include them in my email? I was surprised that the cheque was issued by GS in the first place, given that MB was the claimant, but there you go.

    I know that chasing this up might seem petty to some, but they were more than happy to put me through the wringer over £1.50, so I don't see why they should expect any different from me!
    Originally posted by Gin and Milk
    But Gladstones sent the cheque from their own account so there was a good reason for this.
    You must get to the bottom of this because someone has to pay and follow the court instructions

    This is not petty, this is principle and you are right
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Gin and Milk
    • By Gin and Milk 11th Mar 17, 11:04 AM
    • 216 Posts
    • 246 Thanks
    Gin and Milk
    A Gladstones attack it is then!
    Thanks
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 11th Mar 17, 11:06 AM
    • 7,191 Posts
    • 7,291 Thanks
    pappa golf
    your court claim should be brought against MB , as THEY have failed to pay you
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • Gin and Milk
    • By Gin and Milk 11th Mar 17, 11:09 AM
    • 216 Posts
    • 246 Thanks
    Gin and Milk
    your court claim should be brought against MB , as THEY have failed to pay you
    Originally posted by pappa golf

    That's why I was a bit confused. The judge instructed that we receive the cheque by 4pm on 14th Feb. The cheque is dated 17th Feb. I'm wondering if the cheque was stopped because MB hadn't forwarded payment to GS? Either way this should have been a very straightforward process!
    Thanks
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Mar 17, 11:15 AM
    • 5,538 Posts
    • 7,123 Thanks
    beamerguy
    A Gladstones attack it is then!
    Thanks
    Originally posted by Gin and Milk
    As pappa said it was MB who were the claimant

    Priority is to find out why Gladstones paid you and stopped it
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Mar 17, 11:18 AM
    • 5,538 Posts
    • 7,123 Thanks
    beamerguy
    That's why I was a bit confused. The judge instructed that we receive the cheque by 4pm on 14th Feb. The cheque is dated 17th Feb. I'm wondering if the cheque was stopped because MB hadn't forwarded payment to GS? Either way this should have been a very straightforward process!
    Thanks
    Originally posted by Gin and Milk
    It had crossed my mind that maybe MB refused to pay Gladstones for their mish mash
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 11th Mar 17, 1:06 PM
    • 991 Posts
    • 1,711 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    1. Write to Gladstones copied to MB as initially suggested - set out what happened (court order, date passed, you received cheque x days late, you banked cheque, cheque bounced and bank advised you it had been stopped, nobody had forewarned you of this). Tell them they have 5 working days to pay or a warrant of execution will be applied for without further notice.
    2. Complain to the SRA if you haven't lost the will to live. Tell Gladstones you are going to do this. They should have notified you of whatever problem there was with the cheque. I'll post more about what to complain about later, I have a precedent letter which I'll need to fish out setting out all of Gladstones breaches in my case and they're bound to be similar/the same.

    There's no other way to get your money I'm afraid. You'll get the costs back though - it'll cost them a huge amount of money because the bailiffs add their costs and interest and their costs are huge. There is no leeway with them, they simply turn up and seize goods if no money is forthcoming.

    I don't see why you'd get in trouble going to the press. A defence to libel/defamation is that something is TRUE. If the newspaper thinks it is defamatory they won't run it. I think you should invite the paper to expose these people because there must be dozens like you who are caving in and paying.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 11th Mar 17, 1:27 PM
    • 991 Posts
    • 1,711 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Suggested letter to SRA spelling out their breaches (you could send a draft of this to Gladstones with the letter chasing the £10 - so they can see you are serious). I've simply copied and pasted from a letter I sent to Gladstones, you may need to amend this so it fits in with your complaint.

    Just by way of background: the solicitors professional code of conduct is based on "Principles" and "indicative behaviours" and "outcomes" which show you have/haven't complied with the principles. It is an absolutely appallingly drafted code, drafted (IMHO) by a numpty with not very many brain cells. But there it is, nothing any of us can do about that.

    You will need to add in some paragraph numbers to set this out properly.

    You are a firm of solicitors and your fee earners are bound to comply with your own Professional Code of Conduct issued (and enforced) by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA). The Code obliges you to abide by certain Principles, which include:
    1. uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;
    The notes to Principle 1 state “You have obligations not only to clients but also to the court and to third parties with whom you have dealings on your clients' behalf - see, e.g., Chapter 5 (Your client and the court) and Chapter 11 (Relations with third parties) of the Code.”
    2. act with integrity;
    The notes to Principle 2 state “Personal integrity is central to your role as the client's trusted adviser and should characterise all your professional dealings with clients, the court, other lawyers and the public.”
    3. n/a
    4. n/a
    5. provide a proper standard of service to your clients;
    The notes to Principle 5 state that “You should, e.g., provide a proper standard of client care and of work. This would include exercising competence, skill and diligence, and taking into account the individual needs and circumstances of each client.” And “For a solicitor, meeting the competencies set out in the Competence Statement forms an integral part of the requirement to provide a proper standard of service.”

    Underlying the Principles are various “Outcomes” and “Indicative Behaviours”.

    Outcome 5.6 states that you must “comply with your duties to the court”. I am sure that this includes complying with the CPR, which you have failed to do [include examples of most serious breaches]. Your breaches are so fundamental that you must have knowingly committed them – you are therefore in breach of Principle 1, 2 and 5.

    Indicative Behaviour 5.7 states that acting in the following way would be breach of the Professional Rules: “constructing facts supporting your client's case or drafting any documents relating to any proceedings containing (a)any contention which you do not consider to be properly arguable;”. You must have known that the case set out in the particulars of claim was not properly arguable [in my letter I gave examples of where other courts had thrown out Gladstones incoherent particulars of claim to illustrate this - if you want my list let me know and I'll post it. In your case you might also want to add other things such as the false photographs, but you'd need to show that Gladstones should have known or knew they were fabricated]. This also puts you in breach of Principles 1,2 and 5 of your Professional Rules of Conduct.

    Outcome 11.1 provides that you must not “take unfair advantage of third parties in either your professional or personal capacity” and Indicative Behaviour 11.7 says that it would be a breach of this if you were to take “unfair advantage of an opposing party's lack of legal knowledge where they have not instructed a lawyer”. You are again in breach of your Professional Code of Conduct (this time Principle 2).

    It is a serious matter to have issued a Claim Form containing such woefully deficient particulars, and to seek to take advantage of a litigant in person – a fact made infinitely more serious by the fact that you must know that they are deficient because of the cases I am aware of in which other courts have struck out identical claims which you have issued [ if you want a list of these I can give it to you].

    Another breach of the same principle is your letters seeking to misrepresent the court rules and the strength of your client’s case.

    And now to your latest breach: the fact that you sent me a cheque in respect of the costs order made on [date], which you then cancelled without any notice to me. I received no communication from you at all about this - the bank informed me that you had stopped it. This is a serious breach of principles 1 and 2.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 11th Mar 17, 1:51 PM
    • 991 Posts
    • 1,711 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Add principle 6 to the list 1-5:
    6. behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services (I think cancelling the cheque without notice is a breach of this)

    Also:
    Outcomes 5.1 and 5.2 provide that you must not attempt to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court, nor be complicit in another person doing so. [this relates to the fabricated evidence]; Indicative behaviour 5.1 provides that you must advise your clients to comply with court orders made against them, and advising them of the consequences of failing to comply. Indicative behaviour 5.5 provides that you must refuse to continue acting for a client if you become aware they have committed perjury or misled the court, or attempted to mislead the court, in any material matter unless the client agrees to disclose the truth to the court. Indicative behaviour 5.7 illustrates a breach of the Principles - constructing facts supporting your client's case or drafting any documents relating to any proceedings containinga)any contention which you do not consider to be properly arguable

    Hope this gives you enough to go on in putting together a complaint
    • Gin and Milk
    • By Gin and Milk 11th Mar 17, 2:16 PM
    • 216 Posts
    • 246 Thanks
    Gin and Milk
    Wow Loadsofchildren123, that's great thank you!
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 11th Mar 17, 3:41 PM
    • 991 Posts
    • 1,711 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I went out last night so it's a bit waffly but I hope you can extract the relevant info.
    The SRA code of conduct is the biggest load of tosh it beggars belief.
    Last edited by Loadsofchildren123; 11-03-2017 at 5:49 PM.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 11th Mar 17, 3:43 PM
    • 991 Posts
    • 1,711 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Every other profession has proper, simple black and white rules about what you can and can't do. But not the legal profession. It has to have "principles", "outcomes" and "indicative behaviours".
    Feel free to tell the SRA their code stinks!
    Rant over.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,955Posts Today

8,471Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin