Help please on a response to solicitors

Dear Sirs,

Re: PCN Ref xxxxxxxxxx - Total Parking Solutions

I refer to the recent letter sent by Tim Hawker, which appears (due to his job title) to merely be a debt collector reply but also mentions court and fails to disclose any key documents relevant to the issues in this dispute.

You refer to alleged 'TPS' letters dated June and July but these were never served. Kindly show me any proof of posting and in the absence of such proof, please at least provide me with the alleged letters so I can compare them to the wording of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. It is my belief that your client does not use all of the mandatory wording in Schedule 4 in their template NTK but of course, I have never seen this alleged notice. I need to form a considered opinion on whether they are able to potentially hold me liable as keeper for a parking event I know nothing about.

You are respectfully requested to furnish me with copies of all TPS' letters within 14 days. I also require a copy of the contract (i.e. photographs of the signage on site dated at the time of the alleged parking event).

Kindly do not insult my intelligence with a glib comment on whether YOU think TPS complied with the statutory wording and/or created a contract from 'adequate notice' of the parking charge on site. Not only are your interests very obviously swayed by your client's view, but I am well aware that Wright Hassall has demonstrated that you have very little knowledge about POFA compliance nor prominent/clear signage, as proved by your woeful decisions when 'acting as if you were POPLA'. A sorry state of affairs and conflict of interests, casting a shadow over POPLA's supposed independence and followed (coincidentally?) by the resignation of the ISPA Chairperson and Deputy. Your firm's notoriety relating to your dealings with the private parking 'industry' does not fill me with confidence that Wright Hassall will do anything more than pay lip service to pre-action protocol, should this matter proceed further.

I remind you that, as no NTK was served (you will be unable to evidence that it was delivered, because it was not) your client has in fact failed to invoke 'keeper liability'. If you should proceed, my witness statement will include the truthful statement that no previous letters arrived regarding this matter. I have no idea what it is about and cannot be held liable even if you send me a NTK copy now. It is too late.

It does appear that an increasing number of motorists are being sent misleading information by solicitors acting for private parking firms, so I am pleased to confirm I will continue to consult online forums and your threats and misinformation will be used as evidence of your unreasonableness and failure to comply with the very basics of the Overriding Objective. I will also have no hesitation in reporting your firm to the SRA, should you attempt to mislead me further or try to dissuade me from my right to seek advice where I see fit.

I am unimpressed by your threat that, should I choose to rely on a template defence at court ''we will seek an immediate strike out''. Good luck with that - as a firm of solicitors you are well aware that your first duty is to the court and there is nothing wrong with a consumer seeking assistance to write responses to baseless template allegations from a company with whom I have no contract. A consumer can seek advice wherever they wish and it is the likes of parking firms and their solicitors who deal mainly in template letters. I reserve the right to seek a strike out myself, if you proceed vexatiously with a template claim without due diligence nor any particulars that could possibly give rise to a claim, knowing that I cannot be held liable.

I remind you that there is no presumption in law relating to private land parking, that a keeper was the driver, unless your client has evidence of that person. If they do have evidence of who was driving, I require that evidence to be furnished along with copies of their letters and pictures of the signs on site which they allege were capable of creating a contract with a driver.

If I do not receive the evidence upon which TPS intend to rely, within 14 days, I will quite reasonably consider the matter closed.

yours faithfully,

but , who penned the letter before getting Mr Hawker to sign it

hoohoo wrote: »

First of all, please note we are required to comply specifically with Annex B of the Pre Action Protocol and we do so fully. In proceedings we comply with the spirit of Annex A and we conduct litigation in accordance with the overriding objective. The Letter Before Claim makes clear the action that will be taken should non-payment continue and the consequences of such action. We are confident that our pre action correspondence meets all requirements for information to be provided to the recipient and will therefore not re-issue.

LOL. Those practice directions expired on Tuesday, 28 July 2015. The current ones are here.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

Nice to know that they are over a year behind the curve. I would file a complaint with the SRA .

Good point, hoohoo.

After you posted this I toyed with adding it to the suggested response for the OP, but I decided not to tip them off about the old Practice Direction and to report the entire misleading letter to the SRA. So much to report them for there.