Roxburghe, And "Civil Procedures Parts 31.16 and 31.17"

trisontana

A few weeks ago I complained to the BPA about the wording of letters from Roxburgh which quote the above rules. Today I have received this reply. Comments anyone? :-

Thank you for your recent email to my colleague Steve Clark in which you raised a concern over a reference to the use of the Civil Procedure Rules by AOS member Roxburghe.

In your communication, you have quoted the Civil Procedures which states that the relevant parts 31.16 and 31.17 ‘do not apply to the Small-Claims track’. BPA agrees with this statement.

When I contacted the operator to obtain their views about your concerns, I have been assured that the statement exists in Roxburghe’s documentation for information only, advising recipients of the letter to seek proper legal advice, rather than relying on some popular internet sites. There is no implication at this point that the Civil Procedure Rules will be used of a certainty. I was also assured that any such cases which require use of the Civil Procedure Rules are sent through the County Court track, and as such the Civil Procedure Rules can be applied if necessary. I was also assured that this process is only applied when absolutely needed.

Orford

trisontana wrote: »

I was also assured that this process is only applied when absolutely needed.

Or, in Roxburghe's case, never.

Coupon-mad

trisontana wrote: »

A few weeks ago I complained to the BPA about the wording of letters from Roxburgh which quote the above rules. Today I have received this reply. Comments anyone? :-

Thank you for your recent email to my colleague Steve Clark in which you raised a concern over a reference to the use of the Civil Procedure Rules by AOS member Roxburghe.

In your communication, you have quoted the Civil Procedures which states that the relevant parts 31.16 and 31.17 ‘do not apply to the Small-Claims track’. BPA agrees with this statement.

When I contacted the operator to obtain their views about your concerns, I have been assured that the statement exists in Roxburghe’s documentation for information only, advising recipients of the letter to seek proper legal advice, rather than relying on some popular internet sites. There is no implication at this point that the Civil Procedure Rules will be used of a certainty. I was also assured that any such cases which require use of the Civil Procedure Rules are sent through the County Court track, and as such the Civil Procedure Rules can be applied if necessary. I was also assured that this process is only applied when absolutely needed.

Well that's utter codswallop isn't it?! :mad:

My understand would be that if they applied to the County Court re any claim under contract law which was for an amount under £5000, it would be allocated to the Small Claims Track. No ifs, no buts, automatically allocated by the Court.

I would reply back to the BPA and say that ex-Bank Manager Steve Dargonne at the helm at Roxburghe is pulling the wool over their eyes - and BTW were they aware that the OFT is 'minded to revoke' Roxburghe's CCA licence for such misleading letters already? What about using 'Graham White solicitors' template letters in-house which they pass off as appearing to be from a separate firm of real solicitors, with Roxburghe call centre staff also compounding the deception by pretending they work for 'Graham White' when people phone up? OPC were taken to Court and found guilty for using very similar misleading tactics, including not making it clear that their in-house debt collector was the same company.

Ask what steps has the BPA taken to address these issues seeing as Roxburghe are a member?

Copy in the DVLA this time, posts by 'broadsword' on pepipoo mention the actual email addy & name of the person at the DVLA who may sit up and take notice.

Ask why Roxburghe even have access to the DVLA data under the circumstances as they are not even a PPC and are under investigation by the OFT. Ask the DVLA, how exactly does Roxburghe's clearly dodgy profile (as one of the 'top 5' companies who have applied for the most data) fit with companies supposedly only being able to get such data if they have 'reasonable cause' when they are not even a PPC? You might also ask how Roxburghe are getting so many private mobile phone numbers of keepers, if not from the DVLA then where from?

esmerobbo

"For information only" well that's OK then and there we are thinking it is to try and scare the unknowing!

HO87

Whilst Roxborg may be members of the BPA and do indeed represent PPC's they are at the end of the day a DCA and are answerable to the OFT not just some woolly nonsense from BPA Towers. To suggest that specific reference to CPR is included for information is utterly laughable and who ever signed that reply deserves their rear-end kicking. That's like suggesting that when historically the Scots fought the English that the Scottish raised their kilts to reveal their manhoods "for information only" rather than a form of intimidation. What complete tosh.

(Sorry about the acronym overload)

Sirdan

This was discussed on pepipoo a while ago where a regular suggested that it would be possible for a claimant to apply for an order under 31.16 pre-allocation.
I don't know wether a District Judge in a County Court would ever entertain such an application though as it clearly makes a mockery of the statement at the start of Part 31 about it not applying to claims on the small claims track.
Surely a pre-allocation application seeking to circumvent that condition could be seen as an abuse of process.
Having said all that I would be very very very pleased for Roxburgh / Graham White or any other claimant to make such an application with regard to my alleged parking charge debt.
Since 31.16 relates only to documents I would be very interested to know what documents (or classes of documents) Roxburke and silly old sod Sobell aka Graham White think that a private individual keeper would have that give them any relevant information regarding their claim ????
I certainly don't have any documents which verify who was driving at any given time.

(As for the BPA what a bunch of lieing !!!!!! ..for information only ..yeah right ...their reply shows them for the lieing fraudulent !!!!s they truly are !)

Bearing in mind that the whole rationale of CPR is to avoid court proceedings where possible ..why don't Roxburgh / GW simply ask for the documents surely they have to show that they have done this before moving to an application for disclosure ..so if they did apply that would also go against them.
Next time I get one of these letters I am going to invite them to request the documents from me ..just to see if they actually have any idea what it is they want ...they better have a bloody good answer or a hefty complaint to OFT will follow !!!

HO87

Sirdan wrote: »

This was discussed on pepipoo a while ago where a regular suggested that it would be possible for a claimant to apply for an order under 31.16 pre-allocation.

I entirely agree. If the RK was, for example, a rental company then it is perfectly acceptable that they would have relevant documentary evidence of who the driver was (or was likely to be). One can imagine that judges might be quite sympathetic (even) to an application for an Order in favour of Roxborg et al if the latter could show that they have formally asked for the relevant documents and this had been refused.

But in the case of a private individual? Now, I know years ago my old Dad used to keep a detailed logbook of each journey he made or when us kids borrowed it but how common is that? In any event he did eventually give up the habit when he sold his old Passat in 1979.

Quoting CPR 31.16 & 17 in this way is intended for information purposes? What complete and utter tosh. Its intended as a cosh, pure and simple and for someone at BPA Towers to think otherwise may well help to explain why that organisation seems to act as though PPC World is squeaky clean.

trisontana

I think I will send a follow-up email to the BPA pointing out the error of their ways over this matter. Two points that I will mention are (as mentioned above) the whole question of documentary "evidence", and the fact that the vast majority of private parking tickets are dealt with via the small claims track. Probably a complaint to the SRA would also be in order.

Sirdan

They couldn't ...could they ????????????

CPR 31.4

"31.4
In this Part –
‘document’ means anything in which information of any description is recorded; "

So using the common definition of "anything" this will include any information recorded in my brain ?

and

"31.2
A party discloses a document by stating that the document exists or has existed."

(I will save Roxburgh and Graham !!!!! the trouble of applying for a court order by freely acknowledging that my brain does indeed exist)

However,

"31.3
(1) A party to whom a document has been disclosed has a right to inspect that document except where –
(a) the document is no longer in the control of the party who disclosed it;

(b) the party disclosing the document has a right or a duty to withhold inspection of it;"

( I will assert that I am witholding an inspection of my brain because under 31.3(2) it is wholly disproportionate !! This is particularly so as I can not remember several months after the date in question who was or was not driving the car )

:rotfl:

Kite2010

esmerobbo wrote: »

"For information only" well that's OK then and there we are thinking it is to try and scare the unknowing!

The whole letter is for information only as they don't plan on doing anything with it

robredz

Kite2010 wrote: »

The whole letter is for information only as they don't plan on doing anything with it

Information that may get their backside kicked if they ever did try it on in court possibly.