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

bondy_lad

dont lose any sleep over this.utter morons, full stop.

trisontana

They could apply for a NPO through the small claims track, but it would cost them hundreds of pounds to do it, and they would have to pay for your legal costs as well.

Secondly, the NPO refers to documentation. As the average private RK never has a paper-trail showing who was driving their vehicle at any particular time, then that's a non starter as well.

You must realise that these clowns are just trying to bamboozle people with a lot of meaningless pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo.

Nozone

Thanks guys - the main reason I was asking is because I'm tempted to push this matter against them is they have committed at least one big breach of the Protection From Harassment Act, by calling the RK in his place of work, and stating to the person who answered the phone something along the lines of 'This is Roxburghe Debt Collection calling for the RK whom is in serious debt, failure to contact us will result in this matter being taken to court and will lead to bailiffs reposessing possessions etc.'. All this was said to a receptionist. Any reason for this? No. Massive breach of the Harassment Act? I think so, and frankly I'd love to really shove it to them on behalf of everyone that's had the misfortune of Roxburghe mailing this toilet paper to them. Just basically wondering if I have any sort of leg to stand on.

vax2002

All you will get by contacting this company is MORE silly letters, they do not care what rules they have broken, they have seen every re-buffal letter going and file all in the bin .
This is how the scam works !
It tempts the stupid out in to a fight, then once out of your castle away from the drawbridge they set the harassment dogs on you.
The RK made a very silly mistake in contacting them as all he has succeed in doing is increasing his harassment as now he is a hooked fish.
The advice is Ignore, those who can not follow this one simple instruction get what they deserve to be honest.

Nozone

vax2002 wrote: »

All you will get by contacting this company is MORE silly letters, they do not care what rules they have broken, they have seen every re-buffal letter going and file all in the bin .
This is how the scam works !
It tempts the stupid out in to a fight, then once out of your castle away from the drawbridge they set the harassment dogs on you.
The RK made a very silly mistake in contacting them as all he has succeed in doing is increasing his harassment as now he is a hooked fish.
The advice is Ignore, those who can not follow this one simple instruction get what they deserve to be honest.

I'm willing to take the advice of people on here as reasonably Kosher, however, it is quite arrogant of you to think that this forum is enough for everybody to base their actions on.

Do you really think if you walked up to someone who had just received a ticket from a PPC and stated that 'you don't have to pay it, just bin it' that they would respond with 'sure, ok'.

Anyone but an idiot would ask the reasoning behind this, and whether there was any proof. Which frankly, aside from opinions on here (which again I state I give credit to), there isn't a lot of. PPC's DO take people to court (rare, obviously) so nobody can sit here and guarantee that ignoring is 100% going to work.

HO87

Let's just be a little bit careful in the way that we handle comments about Graham White of West Byfleet (as opposed to Graham White & Co of Bushey, Herts - which is an entirely separate and genuine organisation).

Technically, Graham White is a solicitor's firm and is registered with the Law Society as such with the ID No. of 272121. Click Here for their register entry. The one and only solicitor who is registered at the firm is Michael Sobell. Click Here for his Law Society registration.

What we know, however, is that Mr Sobell is now in his mid-70's and retired some years ago from the LB of Hackney where he was based in the Housing Department. As far as we can tell he has not in recent years traded as a solicitor in the conventional sense and has no office to which the public could walk into on spec', so to speak, fresh off the street.

He has been involved in just two cases in the last few years. One, from 2006, in which he represented a group of Polish builders who had effectively squatted in a house they were renovating when their bill was queried and they considered they were paid insufficient. The problem is that this obliged the family living in the house to move out. Guess who won possession of the property? Read the story courtesy of the Dail Mail here.

Then, IIRC, during 2011 he issued proceedings in relation to a private parking case. The case collapsed because he simply didn't know, it seems, how to complete the paperwork or when and how to submit it on time. He managed to rescue the case from oblivion on one occasion but then completely fouled up the paperwork again and has not been seen since.

Effectively he rents his name to Poxburghe Roxburghe so that they can appear to change the angle and seriousness of their otherwise toothless threats. As best as one can tell these letters do not go across his desk and are simply churned out by the Roxborg debt collection paper mill. Manor House, Lavender Park Road, West Byfleet is an alternative name (in fact the former name) for Roxburghe House, Lavender Park Road. A wander up to their office doors on Streetview will show not even a copperplate for Graham White let alone any office frontage.

Nozone

HO87 ROFL at some of your comments there, and I'd never thought of Streetviewing their digs. Looks like Roxburghe didn't manage to make it out of the 70's (in neither style or mindset)

give_them_FA

Nozone wrote: »

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?

You have strayed a little there, Nozone. A NPO is part of civil, not criminal, proceedings. However you need to remember that Civil proceedings can proceed along a variety of tracks, all of them within the County Court. The Small Claims (usually for under £5,000) is just one of those tracks; the civil procedure rules that Roxburghe whitter on about, apply to other tracks and not the Small Claims track, where procedures are simplified.

Hence, whilst their undoubted intention is to mislead, they have not suggested that any criminal penalties lie in respect of failure to pay them.

esmerobbo

I think it was trisontana who challenged the BPA over Roxburghe's use of this paragraph in their letters. The BPA was informed it was for information purposes only!

So its wrong of us to think its for intimidation! :think:

trisontana

This is the BPA's (in)famous reply:-


I am writing with regard to your recent email to my colleague Steve Clark which you copied to me. In the email you raised a concern over a reference to the use of the Civil Procedure Rules by AOS member Roxburghe.

In your note, you 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.

On receipt of your email I contacted the operator to obtain their views about your concerns. In reply, they sent me copies of the pertinent documentation, and on checking the letters I am content 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. I am also content that there is no implication within the document that the Civil Procedure Rules will definitely be used. When I contacted Roxburghe to question them further, I was satisfied 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 advised that this process is only applied when absolutely needed.

Sincerely
Richard Hilton
Business Development Manager (Approved Operator Scheme)
British Parking Association


Of course to use the full "County Court track" (as opposed to the small claims court) then the claim would have to be considerably more than the sum of money usually asked for by the average PPC.