Roxburghe Private Parking Fine / Invoice etc...

HO87

With the greatest of respect I think you, and probably your OH, is crediting these people with far more power than they have. Roxburghe's (aka Graham White, Solicitors) are just debt collectors. That means that they are empowered by law to ask people to pay them - in exactly the same way, strangely, as you, your wife and the rest of here are. That's right. As much as they huff and puff, write letters with bright red ink in them, stamp their feet and scream at you in the final,analysis they have no more than you or I to "demand" payment. Debt collectors are bottom feeders who make their money out of those who cannot be bothered to ask themselves, are frightened of doing so or maybe don't have a leg to stand on and are chancing their arm on a commission only deal with the likes of Roxburghe's.

Graham White, Solicitor is not a traditional solicitors and is effectively just a title that Roxburghe's "rent" from a real solicitor called Michael Sobell a former council solicitor at LB of Hackney who is now well into his 70's. The letters originate from the exactly the same person at Roxburghe's as wrote to you originally. Notice of Intended Litigation my ar5e! If and I emphasise if, this crowd ever tried to take any one to court again (they tried once, recently,) they would have to improve their knowledge of both written English and the system - particularly the necessity to adhere to deadlines (which they clearly had no clue about) and have gained an understanding of the law. As soon as a defence was submitted their tail disappeared between their legs and the rushed for the horizon never to be seen again.

Don't worry.

notts_phil

TimPH wrote: »

It's actually a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

I know it's a load of rubbish ( to put it mildly) all this, but my wife is getting scared.

These people really are the scum of the earth.

just ignore them

They are just idiots. ive had over 20 parking tickets from people like excel and never paid a penny. Graham white send me letters monthly. Always the same rubbish. Ive had fun winding these phone monkeys up at graham white.

Now use the letters to line the bottom of the cat tray!!!

HO87

notts_phil wrote: »

Now use the letters to line the bottom of the cat tray!!!

I find they work best if put through the shredder first together with all of that party political carp we had for the local elections; all of the BS bumph that came with this year's council tax demand and the endless junk that the Royal Mail will not allow you to opt out of.

TimPH

Robburghe have written back stating 2 cases :

Watteau v Fenwick (1983) and Combined Parking Solutions v S J Thomas ( 2008)

They allege that in both these cases, the court ruled in favour of the claimant.

They really do try don't they !!

esmerobbo

That the best they can do???

"Implied authority" and the infamous Stephen Thomas case. Jeez they must be desperate, maybe they are trying to get as much money in as they can, before their licence gets revoked. [hopefully]

trisontana

It was actually Watteau v Fenwick (1893) which deals with the "law of agency", whatever that means.

As for the other case, Mr Thomson denied being the driver even though he had boasted several times on an internet forum that he had used the car park. The judge did not look kindly on that and found against him.

esmerobbo

I wonder why dont they quote one they won?????????:p

HO87

So this is clearly understood - and I make this information available to Roxburghe staff as well, including those who claim to be "solicitors" - no case heard in a County Court can set a precedent, that is to effectively oblige other courts to follow that decision. The so-called "case" of CPS v. Stephen Thomas was heard at Mansfield County Court. It set no precedent and has no bearing on any other court decision. That is ignoring all of the indications that it was something of a set-up. For a purportedly professional organisation to quote this as if it were a precedent - indeed to dress it up to look and sound like one - is entirely deceptive.

By contrast the case of Watteau v. Fenwick [1893] 1 QB 346 is an entirely genuine precedent but one that was considered eccentric at the time and one that was quickly superseded. The case revolved around the actions of a pub manager who purchased cigars on credit having been banned from doing so by the owners. The suppliers of the cigars learned of the ban and sued the owners for the sum owed on account. The court ruled that where such a ban was put in place then to be effective at law suppliers would have had to have been informed of it.

Roxburghe's are somewhat disingenuously attempting to apply it as a precedent for principals being responsible for the actions of their agent - in other words, in the context of private parking, that the registered keeper would be responsible for the actions of the driver. This is of course nonsense as it would effectively overturn the long-held concept of privity (only those party to a contract can be held to its terms). The case is occasionally thrown up in an effort to cloud the issue but actually has not bearing as there were particular circumstances to the case that lead to the judgment (and help understand and explain its eccentricity) that are rarely quoted especially by our apparently "learned" friends in PPC World. Now, could that be because they are inconvenient or simply because they've never really read the case in full? The answer is probably a bit of both and I know that neither large print nor picture versions are available so it could be very much the latter. The truth is that they are almost certainly relying on a simple summary and those of us who've been around case law long enough know that to do so is at best foolish.

I have supplied the full citation so that those at Roxburghe, or wherever, can search for and read the judgment in full themselves - there are several versions to be had. I have not supplied a link because one would not want to be accused of guiding everyone to a single document that could have been fabricated or "materially altered" as is suggested was the case following the Thomas case.

TimPH

On reflection - what Roxburghes (in their two guises) do is effectively splatter gun you with a mix of harassing letters quickly and often plus some phone calls in the attempt to get paid the illegal and absurd sum of money they demand.

It certainly is the wild west - a company in Roxburghes who win clients like Elite Management ( Midlands) Ltd ( they're the ones to whom most of the blame must be a portioned), and go for a quick killing.

Well, they aren't getting one here.

TimPH

I've checked both of these cases and neither are relevant.

Add to that the fact that they're talking about a civil case, and no contract was entered into and yes, the shredder certainly is the best place for the letters.

When do they give up ?

The really sad thing is that if the 'fine' had been reasonable in the first place I'd have paid it to save the aggro of this load of rubbish - but it was ( as I said in my initial post) profiteering in the extreme.

I have photos of the area of land in question on my iphone ; the land in question is adjacent to a pub, so it's the pub trying to manage their carpark for extreme times of trade ( in other words, not having shoppers park there) and Elite ( my !!!!) just taking the mickey.

If they reduced their invoices to £25 they wouldn't need Roxburghes / White.