Graham White 'Final Warning' (Another one... sorry!)

Nozone

Just a quick question, and some background first;

Got a ticket for some bogus trumped-up 'breach' of Total Parking Solutions regulations back at the start of November. I was the driver but not the registered keeper. Anyway 3 (I think) letters from TPS, 2 from Roxburghe and 1 from Graham White and a couple of calls to the workplace of the RK (!?). After finding this place me and the RK agreed to ignore all this stuff. However after the second letter from TPS and unbeknownst to me the RK sent a letter to TPS stating he wasn't the driver (and not required to disclose who was) and a further one to Graham White/Roxburghe stating the same + threatening to report to the authorities for harassment (a template from Pepipoo was used I think).

Anyway, the RK received a further letter about a week ago from Graham White offering a 'final opportunity' to pay up, in addition to a generic comment regarding the driver;

'31.16 (3) The court may make an order under this rule where:
(a) the respondent is likely to be a party to subsequent proceedings;
(b)...
(c) ...
(d) disclosure before proceedings have started is desirable in order to:
(i) dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings;
(ii) assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings; or
(iii) save costs

I do feel it is important for you to understand that although you, as the registered keeper, may not have been the driver at the time, you would come within the definition of 'likely' to be a party to any proceedings my client may choose to initiate.

If you were not the driver at the time and if you are in any doubt as to the importance of cooperating, I suggest you seek independent legal advice.'

Ok so the RK and me are confused, and the RK is worried that 31.16 (a) means that the RK could be taken to court on the basis of association with the driver. Is this actually correct, or is it just something misquoted and heavily spun into sounding incredibly threatening?

Sorry for posting yet another TPS/Roxburghe/GW related thread, I couldn't find anything relating specifically to this guff.

Thanks in advance!

Orford

What they fail to point out is that Part 31 does not apply to the small claims court and, as you surmise, is a toothless threat

See 27.2 here
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#IDAQ22HC

give_them_FA

Graham White is NOT a firm of solicitors. Please disabuse yourself of that misconception straight away. It is those idiots Roxburghe using different headed paper- look, the address is the same!!

If Graham White WERE a firm of solicitors, then they would be expected to know that what they are saying is complete and utter tripe.

If you proceed upon the basis that anything said in a PPC "enforcement" letter is a lie you will never be wrong.

All part of the scam, my friend. And the RK will never be a party to any claim initiated by Roxburghe/Graham White, as they never initiate claims. They wouldn't have a clue.

And if you have reached the Graham White final letter stage then the end of the Toilet Paper Trail is in sight!

Nozone

Orford wrote: »

What they fail to point out is that Part 31 does not apply to the small claims court and, as you surmise, is a toothless threat

See 27.2 here
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#IDAQ22HC

Thanks Orford for explaining that. Just another question if you or anbody could clarify (kinda besides the point of my thread though);

What types of court are there? Is it Crown, Magistrates, County and small claims? Sorry if I'm sounding like a doofus here, I only really know anything about Crown and Magistrates (after serving on a jury).

Is small claims exclusively for things like debt and civil disputes (such as your garden fence is on my land)?

Nozone

give_them_FA wrote: »

Graham White is NOT a firm of solicitors. Please disabuse yourself of that misconception straight away. It is those idiots Roxburghe using different headed paper- look, the address is the same!!

If Graham White WERE a firm of solicitors, then they would be expected to know that what they are saying is complete and utter tripe.

If you proceed upon the basis that anything said in a PPC "enforcement" letter is a lie you will never be wrong.

All part of the scam, my friend. And the RK will never be a party to any claim initiated by Roxburghe/Graham White, as they never initiate claims. They wouldn't have a clue.

And if you have reached the Graham White final letter stage then the end of the Toilet Paper Trail is in sight!

Your posts never fail to make me laugh (in a good way)!

Yeah I explained to the RK about 'Graham White', and it is hilarious how the GW letters keep talking about acting on behalf of/referring back to the client 'Roxburghe' LOL. Yeah - refer it to another desk in the same room haha.

I wish the RK hadn't engaged them in any communication but was quite worried about it all and his reasoning was that if it did go to court the court would find immediately in favour of TPS/Roxburghe/GW on the basis that he hadn't made any effort to engage them.

Anyway thanks again, hopefully I'll be able to update this thread soon as a success story!

Orford

Nozone wrote: »

Is small claims exclusively for things like debt and civil disputes?

Yes, Crown and Magistrates courts are for criminal offences.

give_them_FA

and County Courts are for Civil matters, including debt and family. Small claims is a division of the County Court and is usually used where the amount which is in dispute is under £5,000.

bondy_lad

graham white solicitors,,its like saying the pope is the head of durex,,,wonder if they will get a mention in watchdog tonight???? graham white that is not durex,,bunch of clowns and i believe janis is still there.

ManxRed

Technically, and sorry to shatter the myth, but Graham White is a real solicitor (and I'm not talking about Sobell here), however I suspects he gets a lot of grief about these letters as there is a rather large disclaimer on his website stating that he is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the 'Graham White' we all know and love on here (and who are Roxburghe's using Sobell's legal status to pretend they are solicitors).

give_them_FA

Yes of course you are right, Manx, there actually is a firm of solicitors called Graham White. But there is no way they will be writing to you about parking tickets, as THAT "Graham White" is a genuine firm, unlike the Roxburghe alias.

Nozone

Sorry to bump this but another letter from Roxburghe arrived today (it seems the last one was an automated/template letter from GW rather than one responding to the RK correspondence).

Basically the same old guff though it appears some monkey in the Roxburghe shed has furiously bashed out some sort of response.

The only point to note is they claim that they will pursue a Norwich Pharmacal Order in order for the RK to disclose driver information.

Well, thanks to Orford and give them FA, I've known where to look for information on this.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31#IDASHUIC

'31.1 (1) This Part sets out rules about the disclosure and inspection of documents.

(2) This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track.'


Am I correct then in believing that as the sum of the claim (£198) has nowhere to go other than the small claims court, and thus a Norwich Pharmacal Order could not be pursued against the RK?


I'm reasonably sure about my understanding here, although I'd like some feedback from someone who may understand a bit better, as if I'm right, in conjunction with my original post in this thread, does this not lead to some serious ramifications against Roxburghe in light of the Protection From Harassment Act/Administration of Justice Act?


Particularly S.40 of the AoJA;


(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/31


As they have suggested two proceedings that would never be applied through a small claim, therefore they have threatened something only within the powers of a Crown/Magistrates.


I think my logic/connections may be a bit shaky here but surely there are a few hints of some serious breaches of legality here, or am I a bit off the mark?