Advise on PPC - respond to solicitors/debt collectors? PLEASE HELP!

EM_C

Hi all,

I have read through many of the posts and Martin's advise on the main page and I could really do with some advice!

In March 09 I used my husbands car to collect some colleagues from a restaurant at about 8.50pm. I parked in the nearest car park as all the council bays were full (free from 6pm!). I went up to the machine and could not see anything that indicated I needed to pay after 6pm so went to collect my colleagues. The box where an officer would normally be was locked up so there was nobody top ask and non of the other cars had parking tickets displayed.

I returned no more than 15 mins later to find a PCN on my window. Issued at 8.57pm The PCN stated I needed to pay £80 within 7 days or be charged an additional £40. I scrutinized the car park to try and find a notice that said I needed to pay at this time. I did find one near the machine but it was very badly lit - I would have had to pay £2 to park there.

Despite having other plans I was gutted and returned home to tell my other half! We had a look on MSE and as I am not the RK we waited for the letter from the PPC...

in 04.09 PPC sent NOTICE TO OWNER (of intent to issue court proceedings). The letter states that the liability for the PCN lies with you the owner/keeper/driver/hirer and they requested £120 immediately. With threats of court action and further solicitors fee's, court fee's and interest to be added. (Sols fee's of £50 Court Fee of £30 plus interest at 8%)

Within 7 days another threatening letter was received with "FINAL DEMAND PRIOR TO COURT ACTION'.

My husband the RK for the vehicle sent a letter at the beginning of May and used the Private not driver template letter on Martins guide.

We received a response from the PPC which stated
''Upmann v Elkan (1871) established that, ''if through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in a tortuous act of others so as to facilitate their wrongdoing he may incur no personal liability but comes under a duty to assist the person who gas been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers''. (This is called the Norwhich Pharmacal Principle. Basically in our situation this means that the registered keepr of the vehicle will not be held liable if he was not the driver however he does have a duty to assist us and inform us of who was the driver''.

We have not entered into any more correspondance with the firm and did not hear from them again until August again requesting payment of £120.00 within 14 days.

Then in Sept we received a letter from a debt recovery agent requesting £160.25. - I am not sure how they have calculated the £40.25 that they have slapped on top of the other charges! It advises if we dont pay in 7 days they would pass to a solicitor.

Sue enough whilst we have been away for a week we have received a letter from a solicitor to advise the following:

FINAL WARNING
TAKE NOTICE that despite many attempts to obtain payment from you, you have chosen to withhold settlement of the amount stated above (£160.25).

We have already fulfilled all legal requirements in relation to commencing litigation.

If you are in any doubt as to the seriousness of this situation you should seek indepenant legal advice as the consequences of the litigation can be far reaching such as:
- Substantial legal costs and statutory interest being added to your debt
- Your name being listed on the Register of Judgements affecting your chances of getting credit in the future.
- Seizure of your assets by Bailiffs
- An order to obtain information from judgement debtor.

It is your responsibility to repay this account to us immediately, and we put you in notice that we will shall refer the matter in seven days.

Please be assured that this matter will not go away without solution or resolution.
If you do not wish to incur the consequences of court action you must pay the amount claimed immediately. If you cannot pay the full amount, or you have a valid defence to this claim you should call this office without further delay.

Before we take any action or contact the solicitor I could really do with some advice!
1. Should we respond to the solicitor? If so what should RK's response be?
2. I was under the impression that should this matter go as far as court it would not affect our credit score as we have not entered into a credit agreement but I am worried because of the recent solicitors letter?!

Any advise would be greatly appreciated!!! If you require copies of the PCN or subsequent letters to be scanned and uploaded I can do that no probs. The PCN does have the BPA approved operator and CCAS registered stamps on the bottom of their paperwork.

I look forward to hearing from you!!!

Many thanks

Em

Crabman

We have already fulfilled all legal requirements in relation to commencing litigation.

Then why don't they actually commence litigation instead of harping on about how they intend to, if their case is so strong they can go ahead and file a case, that will net them lots of money in terms of attending court for their client.

Instead they insist on harassing you and bringing the profession into disrepute. Why? Because they have no intention of going near court with the rubbish they're spouting.

You've sent a template letter to them which is more than what most on this board consider necessary. You're on solid ground

trisontana

Which parking company is it? This is so they can be named and shamed for demanding money with menaces.

oldone_2

Hi em welcome to MSE. from what you have posted, the PPC have made a number of false statements.

First what you have is a alledged civil debt, so the registered keeper has no obligation to co-operate with them.If they think you owe them money, it is up to them to prove it with sufficient balance of probabilties. They would then need to justify their claim. A judge would consider a claim for £160 for a £2 ticket a penalty, and not a reasonable charge.

The PPC would have to also prove that they have pemission to chase this debt from the owner of the land.

On balance the right course of action is to now ignore them. Since you ahve already corresponded once, you will probably get more letters than normal - which of course you should just ignore.l

Sir_Roger_deLodger

Is it Excel? I had one from them earlier this year quoting drivel about Upmann v Elkan and the Norwich Pharmacal Principle. Needless to say it was ignored.

EM_C

Trisontana - It's Vehicle Control Services, Debt Recovery is Roxburgh and Solicitor is Graham White!

Thanks Crabman - you have put my mind at rest a little! ;o)

oldone - I guess that we'd only need to go down the route of unreasonable charges if they identify me as the driver and therefore the person responsible. Otherwise it will just be my other half as the RK who would have to defend himself (if it does go to court) as not being the driver and therefore not responsible?

I wish we had just ignored all of the letters but I dont suppose one letter has done too much harm - we had just hoped that as he wasnt the driver they would give up sooner!

Thanks again!!!

Sir_Roger_deLodger

Roxburghe and G White, well known scamsters. Don't worry they never go to court. They will send you a couple more letters then disappear back under their stone.

EM_C

Sir_Roger_deLodger wrote: »

Roxburghe and G White, well known scamsters. Don't worry they never go to court. They will send you a couple more letters then disappear back under their stone.

Sigh of relief! Thanks Sir Roger!!! :rolleyes:

trisontana

I have just found this job advert for VCS.

So, according to them they are "one of the most recognised and respected Car park Enforcement companies in the UK. We aim to deliver first-class services to all our Customers and Clients."

I suppose that's another name for con-merchants.

I like their address though - Cemetery Road. The company is staffed by a load of zombies and the un-dead.

I have also found this little gem about "Graham White":-

The PO Box number for Roxburghe is actually for the nearest sorting office to Graham White Solicitors' supposed office - which is actually Roxburghe's offices. As far as the Law Society is concerned this iteration of "Graham White Solicitors" is not registered with them.
There is a Graham White Solicitors in Hertfordshire which is registered with the Law Society but they are nothing to do with this crowd and are somewhat miffed that someone else is using their name. There is however a Michael Sorbell who is a solicitor - according to Law Society records he works for the housing department at Hackney Council - it is apparently the same chap.

How this can be permitted to continue is beyond us. Solicitors are supposed to have compliance officers which ensure cases are dealt with in a certain way. For example the post has to be opened on premises where a solicitor works from. We remain uncertain as to how Mr Sorbell fulfils his many duties. Perhaps you should ask the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Hackney Council?

Crabman

http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/contact-us.page

Email: contactcentre[at]sra.org.uk or fraud[at]sra.org.uk

sarahg1969

I can't imagine they'd make an application for a Norwich Pharmacal Order. They have to pay the respondent's costs of such an order, which simply wouldn't make it worth their while.

re Graham White - when I spoke to the Law Society some time last year, they confirmed to me that Sobell is principal of Graham White, and both have been registered with the LS since the mid-nineties.