Whyte & Co debt recovery

tumus

Whatdoiknow wrote: »

Roxburghe are a bunch of numpties and cannot demand you notify them of who was driving and they are lying stating that as you are the RK you will be responsible, this is even confirmed in guidelines from the BPA

I have had dealings with them on behalf of one of our company car drivers and informed them that if they state anything similar to that to us we would inform the police and other authorities.

They ran a mile and caved in immediately. As I am sure others will state just continue to ignore.

Have received a 'NOTICE OF INTENDED LITIGATION' from Graham White Solicitors. It was them that we replied to stating it was not my husband driving.
The next letter came from Roxburghe saying we had declined to to provide the drivers details- not true, we simply stated it was not him! It also says that their client (Euro carparks) may make an application to court under 'Civil Procedural Rules 31.16'?? and involve my husband in any legal procedings related.
Also, "It is important for you to understand that although you may not have been the driver at the time, in the absence of driver details; our client is within legal rights to pursue an outstanding charge."

Ignore??

fb1969

tumus wrote: »

It also says that their client (Euro carparks) may make an application to court under 'Civil Procedural Rules 31.16'?? and involve my husband in any legal procedings related.

And Part 31.1(2) states that Part 31 doesn't apply to claims through the small claims court http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/contents/parts/part31.htm so they can't use 31.16 - which concerns documentation anyway!

Ignore - its a bluff designed to scare.

HO87

fb1969 wrote: »

And Part 31.1(2) states that Part 31 doesn't apply to claims through the small claims court http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/contents/parts/part31.htm so they can't use 31.16 - which concerns documentation anyway!

Ignore - its a bluff designed to scare.

+1.

Roxburghe's have worn this too thin to be true. The quote, taken out of context, of course, can only be intended to intimidate and, whether it is or isn't, it materially misleads its recipients.

Complain to the Office of Fair Trading including a copy of the letter. Roxborg are currently subject to an OFT investigation having been told in May of this year that the OFT were "minded to revoke" their debt collection licence. The more ongoing complaints the OFT receives the better as it will help to demonstrate that this company are, at best, being careless about the accuracy of their letters.

Coupon-mad

tumus wrote: »

Have received a 'NOTICE OF INTENDED LITIGATION' from Graham White Solicitors. It was them that we replied to stating it was not my husband driving.
The next letter came from Roxburghe saying we had declined to to provide the drivers details- not true, we simply stated it was not him! It also says that their client (Euro carparks) may make an application to court under 'Civil Procedural Rules 31.16'?? and involve my husband in any legal procedings related.
Also, "It is important for you to understand that although you may not have been the driver at the time, in the absence of driver details; our client is within legal rights to pursue an outstanding charge."

Ignore??

Of course ignore - there was never a reason to reply. You were only receiving the standard letter-chain shown in the top thread.

Have you seen the letter-chain pics and shown them to your OH?

Have you seen the Watchdog clip and shown it to your OH?

If not then read the stickies on the top of the forum under 'Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking'.

Hopefully your OH will not be so keen to pay a scammer once he has seen he just needs to tick off each letter and could have made paper aeroplanes out of them. This is nothing to worry about and has zero effect on credit rating. It's a scam just like a series of phishing emails - and you don't get a CCJ for deleting those.

esmerobbo

"It is important for you to understand that although you may not have been the driver at the time, in the absence of driver details; our client is within legal rights to pursue an outstanding charge"

What a gang of idiots they are, you would think they would be behaving themselves with the revoke over their head. However it would seem they are trying to commit suicide!!

tumus

Thank you all so very much. I am having a good old giggle at your comments and regaining my confidence. Him indoors is not however- it's tough times for us all financially I'm just trying to save on the unnecessary.

Whatdoiknow

tumus wrote: »

Have received a 'NOTICE OF INTENDED LITIGATION' from Graham White Solicitors. It was them that we replied to stating it was not my husband driving.
The next letter came from Roxburghe saying we had declined to to provide the drivers details- not true, we simply stated it was not him! It also says that their client (Euro carparks) may make an application to court under 'Civil Procedural Rules 31.16'?? and involve my husband in any legal procedings related.
Also, "It is important for you to understand that although you may not have been the driver at the time, in the absence of driver details; our client is within legal rights to pursue an outstanding charge."

Ignore??

Stop worrying and continue to ignore and have a drink :beer:

Below is a copy of the letter I wrote to them, I know many say ignore as I have done but I am a bit of a wind up merchant and do like to really wind pillocks like these up.

Dear Sirs,

We refer you to your letter dated Xth Xxxxxx 2011 (copy attached)

We are disappointed that you have ignored our previous letter to you dated XXth Xxxxxx 2011.

As we clearly pointed out to you we are not prepared to give out employee details without their consent (see attached our Company Policy on disclosure of employee information).

We would also point out that as your letter suggests that as we are the registered keeper (actually we are not) then we are liable for the payment. This is a clear breach of the BPA guidelines :-

2.2 The paragraph 67) A) (Enforcement Action on outstanding parking tickets – Notice to Owner - page 13); this “letter to the owner” should make no reference to asking for payment but should specifically point out the details of the contravention and request that the owner furnish the details of the driver at the time the charge was incurred.

We also feel that this may well be a breach of the Administration Of Justice Act Section 40 as well as the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Therefore if you persist in threatening us as a Company for any debt that one of our drivers may or may not have incurred may well put is in a position of handing your details to the Police, Trading Standards, and the Office Of Fair Trading as we are sure you know that any breach of the above mentioned acts would be a criminal offence.

Yours faithfully,

I had a letter back within days saying they were no longer pursuing the matter.:D

Like I said they are a complete bunch of t***ers.:rotfl:

HO87

I hope that besides getting this off your chest that you also complained to the OFT as I suggest above? Sounding off in a letter is fine, I have no problem with that at all, but it really does need to be reported. There are many more people out there who are taken in by this sort of demand. They are the ones who need our assistance and who, albeit unwittingly, keep these guys in clover. Cut off the money from these ridiculous charges and their so-called businesses will simply collapse.

tumus

HO87 wrote: »

I hope that besides getting this off your chest that you also complained to the OFT as I suggest above? Sounding off in a letter is fine, I have no problem with that at all, but it really does need to be reported. There are many more people out there who are taken in by this sort of demand. They are the ones who need our assistance and who, albeit unwittingly, keep these guys in clover. Cut off the money from these ridiculous charges and their so-called businesses will simply collapse.

Thanks so much H, gonna wait til the letters of intimidation stop first, Ta x

tumus

Guys, this is now getting worse and causing arguments. This morning, Graham White Solicitors phoned and asked my husband who was driving the car- he told them it was me! So basically, he hasn't listened to a word I have said or shown him. They are now sending out letters addressed to me- big sigh! ???