Graham White Solicitors pursuing with County Court Claim

HO87

At the end of the day the best solution to your problem is the one that seems most sensible and most comfortable for you. I don't think any of us would try to seriously browbeat you into following a single course of action if it sat awkwardly with you. The truth is that - because we are dealing with what may be characterised as the wild-west - there are a number of potential resolutions only two of which are paying up Elite's demand in full or following LB-C's offer of £10.

It is very easy to offer advice and more often than many of us would like to admit it is on the basis of incomplete and, sometimes, misleading detail. Only you know exactly what has passed between you, Elite and Graham White (aka Michael Sobell) and were I to make an educated guess - and I do not advise that you make any response to this point - unintentionally your original appeal provided some information upon which Elite feels confident to issue proceedings upon. In saying that I do not mean to convey any impression that it represents a fatal error - if indeed it occurred.

If you are prepared to continue to fight the matter then you will find ample advice here and particularly on PePiPoo but if you would - understandably - prefer to "make the problem go away" then a) no on is going to think any the worse of you for doing so, and b) there are a number of options open to you although I would respectfully suggest that following LB-C's advice is one solution that is unlikely to work.

NeverAgain_2

... I would respectfully suggest that following LB-C's advice is one solution that is unlikely to work...

LBC does not offer the 'pay £10' advice, she disagrees with it.

Honest john, the site's figurehead is the one who offers the 'pay £10' advice, or he has done in the past.

LBC has not offered any advice to the OP, as far as I know.

I've no idea if LBC's service is any good, I'm merely pointing out to the OP it exists.

The service doesn't seem to have a good name around here, and I'm sure the OP is capable of coming to a decision.

backfoot

The Original Poster has chosen the Pepipoo route and is receiving lots of positive advice. All for nothing.

For a small claim, I would also choose this route rather than a 'partial advice route', then fees.

The case looks cast iron for the defendant to me. You don't have to be a lawyer to see the claim is fundamentally flawed and will laughed out of court.

HO87

NeverAgain wrote: »

... I would respectfully suggest that following LB-C's advice is one solution that is unlikely to work...

LBC does not offer the 'pay £10' advice, she disagrees with it.

Honest john, the site's figurehead is the one who offers the 'pay £10' advice, or he has done in the past.

This may be so. However below is a direct quote from LB-C herself, from October last year, offered in response to a poster on the HJ forum asking for guidance on dealing with an “exorbitant invoice” from a private parking company (PPC).

HJ advocates sending £5-10 in "full and final settlement" if you are the keeper, were driving the car at the time and the overstay occurred. What you are doing by this is making an offer to settle out of court.

It is accepted that this quote, plucked somewhat at random from the myriad to chose from, may not fully represent her views and it certainly isn't a detailed response. Nevertheless, the fact remains that whilst LB-C makes it clear that the advice is from HJ himself she can hardly be described as distancing herself from it and, indeed, by offering it in an unqualified form risks it being interpreted as her endorsement of it. This is particularly so given the semi-permanence of forum posts and their availability. What is very clear is that she did not dissent from it at that point and any change of heart can only have taken place since that post in October 2010.

NeverAgain wrote: »

LBC has not offered any advice to the OP, as far as I know.
I've no idea if LBC's service is any good, I'm merely pointing out to the OP it exists.

Respectfully, and allowing for a degree of shorthand on both sides, at no point did I represent that LB-C had offered the OP advice specific to her case and nor did I make any comment – good or bad – about any such advice offered. On the basis of what seems to me to be LB-C's advice I stated it is my opinion that, if followed, it was unlikely to succeed.

My opinion is firmly based on the standard PPC business model. PPC's rarely have evidence of the identity of the driver and thereby the identity of the person they will contend contracted with them. By making an offer such as is set out by HJ (and by LB-C herself – as above) there is a very real risk that the offeror will quite unwittingly provide not only the identity of the driver but indicate a clear acceptance that a contract had been entered into and that they were a party to it.

The level of proof required at civil law is such that any judge, faced with an offer letter of this nature put into evidence by the PPC (they are not going to fail to play such an ace) is going to understandably conclude that on the balance of probabilities the author was the driver. The PPC is then left only to show that their signage was up to snuff and their case, as a whole will be proved. This approach carries some risk for the PPC but having evidence of the driver relieves them of the greatest problem they otherwise have.

If there is any doubt as to the potential danger of communicating in any way with PPC's then one only has to browse through the numerous threads here and on other forums to see that in many, many cases those pursued through the courts are those who have innocently used the so-called appeals process offered by PPC's only to find those letters of appeal used as evidence against them.

This tends to lead one to the slightly cynical view that the standard appeals process is intended solely to induce those in receipt of so-called tickets to supply the last pieces of evidence the PPC requires to prove its case. An offer such as HJ recommends is not going to be viewed any differently.

NeverAgain wrote: »

The service doesn't seem to have a good name around here, and I'm sure the OP is capable of coming to a decision.

HJ's advice does not have a good name but I suspect that is as a result of a number of factors not just the fact that the advice proffered there differs from that here.

Insofar as the OP is capable of making a decision, I whole-heartedly agree – provided they are armed with as full a picture as possible.

NeverAgain_2

HO87 wrote of offering to pay £10:...Nevertheless, the fact remains that whilst LB-C makes it clear that the advice is from HJ himself she can hardly be described as distancing herself from it and, indeed, by offering it in an unqualified form...

LBC's most recent post on the topic on her forum on Jan 11 this year, referring to the private parking companies: "The guidance is never connect with them, never answer any post, don't even read it if it bothers you - just put it in the bin."

backfoot

NeverAgain wrote: »

LBC's most recent post on the topic on her forum on Jan 11 this year, referring to the private parking companies: "The guidance is never connect with them, never answer any post, don't even read it if it bothers you - just put it in the bin."

Perhaps she has finally heeded the advice given here. :rotfl:

Ironically,the Original Poster did appeal his PPN, on the grounds he has a ticket. They naturally refused his appeal, as they do, but the guys on Pepipoo believe that this actually strengthens his case.

If they claim breach of contract, he can easily show no breach. In addition,in refusing an obviously valid appeal,the judge is likely to take a very dim view of the proceedings.:)

Why do you keep wittering on about LBC, there are plenty of good knowledgeable people here and on Pepipoo who have excellent track records in these matters?

If she wants to add genuine free advice here without loss leading towards fees then all well and good. Paying fees for such small claims is totally counterproductive.

Quentin

backfoot wrote: »

Why do you keep wittering on about LBC......

Exactly. Why?

Especially when she came here in a (failed miserably) attempt to self promote, and get her website some free advertising (which also failed), using as her "credentials" that she provided the legal advice for HJ!

esmerobbo

If you read the case on Pepipoo after the OP's initial panic, once he regained his composure he probably would have been able to defend on his own. As it is the people on Pepipoo have already picked several large holes in it.

I think the wise money is going on a no show for Mr Sobell!:D

trisontana

esmerobbo wrote: »

I think the wise money is going on a no show for Mr Sobell!:D

Poor old chap. Sobell must be well into his 70's. It's a long journey for him just to be told his case will be dismissed.

backfoot

I think Sobell has made a howler here.

Any appeal will have been made to the PPC who rejected it.

Next step is for the file to be passed to Roxburghe/ Graham White.

I don't think the appeal stuff is passed over. (i have evidence ).

A few phone calls and they sense the OP is not au fait with the Court process. The writ is served to frighten him.

Luckily he seeks advice and he is cast iron safe. He paid the contract and showed them. No loss/no claim.

Ooops another wasted set of costs and probably another referral to the Solicitor's Regulatory body. :T