Roxburghe letters telling you to ignore internet advice

HO87

Oh, and another piece of anecdotal information (from the interweb):

In order to comply with the Consumer Credit Act Roxburghe (UK) Ltd are required to hold a licence (No. 0533468) to act as a debt collection agency. This licence also covers their trading titles PCN Parking Services and www.paymypcn.net

On 20 May 2011 the Office of Fair Trading formally notified Roxburghe that they were "minded to revoke" that licence and they have been subject to investigation and compliance action since that time.

I could of course be making all of this up and could point you towards a web address that was nothing but a mock up. I therefore recommend that you look at the Office of Fair Trading's website and satisfy yourself that what I am saying is correct.

As far as the Civil Procedure Rules are concerned I urge you to search the Ministry of Justice website and read rule 31A - in its entirety - for yourself.

A definition of 'anecdotal' (courtesy of Collins) is:

"containing or consisting exclusively of anecdotes rather than connected discourse or research conducted under controlled conditions"

I would be very grateful for those at Roxburghe responsible for the content of their letters to point out to me quite how the identifiable facts I have set out amount to simple anecdote.

One is forced to ask whether the ongoing enforcement and compliance action by the OFT had anything to do with the misleading content of their letters?

Stephen_Leak

Link to The Civil Procedure Rules 1998.


"Anecdotal" and for "information purposes only", of course.

HO87

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

Link to The Civil Procedure Rules 1988.

"Anecdotal" and for "information purposes only", of course.

1988 :eek:

I hope you actually meant 1998.

This links to the rules as they were originally published. Sadly, they have been amended on a fairly regular basis since then.

For the up to date version of Rule 31/31A follow this link:- Civil Procedure Rules 1998 - courtesy of the Ministry of Justice.

Stephen_Leak

Oops. Fixed.

Pollybluecat

Thanks for all the advice, it's a comfort. I have ignored a further 2 letters now, the latest being a Final Warning as Graham White is intending to seek his clients instructions to apply for an 'Application to the Court under Civil Procedures Rules 31.16 - Disclosure before Proceedings Start'. They then go on to state an extract of CPR 31.16 (3) and highlight the part where it says ii) assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings or iii) save costs. It's signed by Michael Sobell, Solicitor. So my question is, what will be next (if anything, apart from the guaranteed interminable threats)?
Many thanks,
Polly

Stephen_Leak

Roxburghe and Graham White are the same people. Compare the signatures on the letters.

Graham White are solicitors, but only because they pay a semi-retired solicitor, Michael Sobell, to use his name.

They omit to mention Part 31.1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which says, “This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track”. Parking charge cases are heard on the small claims track of the county courts.

Roxburghe are under investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, who are "minded to revoke their licence".

Graham White are under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for threatening people with legal action that they can't actually take.

Keep on ignoring. You are very close to the end of the letter chain.

taffy056

Polly the next stage is that they give up as you are not falling for it. You may receive one more letter in desperation then they will be gone. And you would have gone through the cycle of threatograms

Pollybluecat

Thanks taffy - threatograms, ha ha, I like It's really tough to hold your nerve though, apart from the threats made to, I imagine a lot more vulnerable people and that's how they manage to go on, it's frustrating not being able to respond in the same vein as them, as you know if you do, they will never leave you alone, like a predator stalking it's prey! I suppose if they can't 'see' you, then they can't 'catch' you...... so yes, best advice is IGNORE.......

devonlad

AltheHibby wrote: »

Trisontana,

Agreed. BTW I recently had the pleasure of telling someone in a Morrisons that they didn't have to pay the ticket on their car. I then followed them out and watched them wave cheerfully to a very confused scammer's lacky. It's fun saving people money. :-)

Its the good deed of the day isnt it. i now keep some stick it notes in my car and leave notes with info on these web sites. Each time i help someone or leave a note i get a smug smile just like Earl (tv prog, My name is Earl)
:j

Pollybluecat

Thanks Stephen Leak too! I wondered why they missed parts a) and b) out of the extract of CPR but rapidly came to the conclusion that it was probably convenient for them to do so.....
Polly