Graham White Soliciters Over Apcoa Parking Fines

Coupon-mad

Surely you didn't pay money to get that freely-available advice, I do hope not as that's what internet forums are for?! It only takes a quick Google and you are here (which is what you must have done) and then you can read the sticky threads & watch the Watchdog video. Or go to pepipoo private parking tickets forum and read their sticky threads and see the same Watchdog video...

...all of which clearly explain the facts for free (read the stickies at the top and then any other threads below - any thread, same advice):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60

Anyway, of course ignore the scammers. No, Roxburghe do not take anyone to Court (and 'Graham White' is just another trading name of Roxburghe, not a currently practising firm of solicitors). When 'Graham White' write or phone people it's actually the Roxburghe call centre passing themselves off as solicitors.

trisontana

On the subject of a company passing themselves as a firm of solicitors, this story might be of interest :-

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2011/11/log-book-loans-caught-in-possi.html

I wonder if that could also apply to Roxburghe/Graham White?

"A typical letter from Adams Spencer & Phillips (Legal Services) Ltd said: "Unless payment of the full outstanding balance is received by our clients, we have !instructions to commence legal !proceedings against you without further notice."

But it turned out that ASP had no staff of its own, no authorisation to work as a debt collector and was run out of the same office as Nine Regions."

Sound familiar ?

Davidthomas_2

Coupon Mad - Unfortunately i did pay £22 for solicitors quick advice, i wasnt fully convinced that legally I wasnt liable for some amount. . (I'm a sceptical at the best of times) - But thanks to people like you. And others who have posted their experiences - i wont be paying this "fine". I probably would have done, if it wasnt for others sharing their own experience. Praise the internet and this money matters site!! Cheers.

peter_the_piper

Glad to see that your £22.00 was not completely wasted, you found a solicitor who actually knew that the parking invoices were not enforceable. Not many seem to know this and just say pay. Now you can get on with ignoring them, have a nice weekend.

Davidthomas_2

Yes - thanks. Same to you have a good weekend. I think the bin is the best place for them.

manj007

I recieved a letter from them saying "we are fully aware of anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites and you may well feel this guidance is worth following. We strongly urge you seek independent legal advice rather than rely on these opinions, and we would respectively suggest that you refer to the Civil Procedure part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17."

Is there any truth to what they are saying ???

trisontana

As usual they are lying. "Civil Procedure part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17." does not apply to the small claims track. They have been spouting this drivel for weeks now.

HO87

trisontana wrote: »

As usual they are lying. "Civil Procedure part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17." does not apply to the small claims track. They have been spouting this drivel for weeks now.

+1

The quote from the Civil Procedure Rules is entirely correct. However, the most important section - that at the very start of CPR Part 31 says:

(1) This Part sets out rules about the disclosure and inspection of documents.
(2) This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track.

It is the small claims track (Small Claims Court) that any alleged parking infringement case will go and there is therefore no reason to panic.

Why these plonkers continue to churn out this nonsense when their error (Or is it just a rather convenient omission?) has been pointed out to them repeatedly is beyond me. Unless of course you adopt an entirely cynical view that they just can't help themselves from misleading the public because they are desperate to get at their cash.

Coupon-mad

manj007 wrote: »

I recieved a letter from them saying "we are fully aware of anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites and you may well feel this guidance is worth following. We strongly urge you seek independent legal advice rather than rely on these opinions, and we would respectively suggest that you refer to the Civil Procedure part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17."

Is there any truth to what they are saying ???

This letter is easily found on forums with a quick Google of the sentence you quoted. Others have mentioned it for months and I think it's on our top thread of letter-chain pictures as well. It is just part of the scamogram series.

So worry ye not.

Kite2010

At least they have dropped references to getting a NPO to force you to disclose the driver. Another empty threat