Solicitors letter from gpb solicitors llp

Umkomaas

Notlaw wrote: »

I got a ticket in a super market car park.
I have read some where that pcn issue date has to be 28 days after the incident ?

Ticket on your windscreen?

If so, the PPC has to wait 28 days to see if the DRIVER responds. If no response, they can then obtain details of the REGISTERED KEEPER from the DVLA , after which they have a further 28 days to serve a Notice to Keeper (NtK).

To get more specific advice on your case, please start a new thread (see my signature below) and give us some more detail like:

Incident in England or Wales, if not where?
Supermarket - name of?
What have you received so far?
Who is the PPC?

Do not ignore this Parking Charge, but if only a windscreen ticket so far, await the NtK. Meantime, after posting your new thread, you must get down to some serious homework by looking at previous cases here on the forum - but look at most recent pages, also sticky 'POPLA Decisions' - will give you a better idea of what you need to do.

Notlaw

Notlaw wrote: »

I got a ticket in a super market car park.
I have read some where that pcn issue date has to be 28 days after the incident ?

From the Guardian.
Check that any Notice to the Registered Keeper was sent out more than 28 days after the parking ticket was issued. If it was sent earlier then the parking company cannot sue the registered keeper for any alleged parking charges. If the parking company requested that the DVLA provide the name and address of the registered keeper earlier than 28 days after issuing a ticket, it cannot sue the registered keeper. It also may be a breach of the Data Protection Act, for which the DVLA may be liable.

Stroma

That's fine for fake tickets on the vehicle which must be with you no earlier or later than days 29-56 after the parking incident. However if this was done through ANPR cameras the Notice to Keeper must be with you within 14 days of the parking event

And by the way anyone can sue anybody, whether it has merit is up to the courts

Umkomaas

Notlaw wrote: »

From the Guardian.
Check that any Notice to the Registered Keeper was sent out more than 28 days after the parking ticket was issued. If it was sent earlier then the parking company cannot sue the registered keeper for any alleged parking charges. If the parking company requested that the DVLA provide the name and address of the registered keeper earlier than 28 days after issuing a ticket, it cannot sue the registered keeper. It also may be a breach of the Data Protection Act, for which the DVLA may be liable.

Only partially correct by The Guardian. 200 days is more than 28 days after the event, compliant or not?

You can try to appeal/defend on PoFA dates as a defence at POPLA/court , but there are much stronger points. Appealing to the PPC on this point alone is unlikely to gain you any success.

There's been so many complaints re DVLA 'breaches' of the DPA with no success that them being 'liable' is but a pipe dream at the moment.

More fronts to fight on - will you start a new thread please?

jobabtwitch

Parking Charge Notice issued on cinema car park, (free car park I might add), because I'd parked in a disabled bay without displaying a badge. It was just 4 minutes before my carer returned to put the badge on display as I had to be assisted in to the cinema. The parasite must have seen me parking up and being assisted into the cinema before he pounced with a ticket. Then I received the usual Parking Charge Notice to the registered keeper, followed by a letter from Roxburghe UK Ltd and now today I have had the dubious pleasure of receiving a letter from GPB Solicitors informing that if I don't pay up they "may" institute legal proceedings against me and that on top of the £150 charge I will have to pay a further £207.25 in costs. Is it a coincidence that Roxburghe and GPB Solicitors have the same address? (Call me cynical but somehow I think not). I am intending to continue to ignore any further correspondence from either GPB or Roxburghe and if they do issue a claim I will be more than happy to take them on as I believe i have "right on my side". If you know any different please let me know.

Stroma

Can you please create your own thread below - thanks
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

pogofish

jobabtwitch wrote: »

Parking Charge Notice issued on cinema car park, (free car park I might add), because I'd parked in a disabled bay without displaying a badge. It was just 4 minutes before my carer returned to put the badge on display as I had to be assisted in to the cinema. The parasite must have seen me parking up and being assisted into the cinema before he pounced with a ticket. Then I received the usual Parking Charge Notice to the registered keeper, followed by a letter from Roxburghe UK Ltd and now today I have had the dubious pleasure of receiving a letter from GPB Solicitors informing that if I don't pay up they "may" institute legal proceedings against me and that on top of the £150 charge I will have to pay a further £207.25 in costs. Is it a coincidence that Roxburghe and GPB Solicitors have the same address? (Call me cynical but somehow I think not). I am intending to continue to ignore any further correspondence from either GPB or Roxburghe and if they do issue a claim I will be more than happy to take them on as I believe i have "right on my side". If you know any different please let me know.

This is a totally different situation to the OP's and the approach to resolving it could be very different. You need to post your own thread, not bump an old and irrelevant one!

CaptainAmerica

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has intervened into the practice of Mr Simon Andrew Clive Newbold, Ms Zakia Khalid and Mr Roy George at GPB Solicitors LLP based at GPB House, Arden Court, Arden Street, Stratford-upon-Avon, CV37 6NT.
The current Practising Certificates of Mr Newbold, Ms Khalid and Mr George have been suspended as a result of the intervention decision, so they cannot practise as a solicitor.
The grounds of intervention for GPB Solicitors LLP and Mr Newbold, Ms Khalid and Mr George are:

• Reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of an employee of GPB Solicitors in connection with the practice
• Failure to comply with the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 1998 and the SRA Accounts Rules 2011

An intervention means the SRA has closed a firm with immediate effect. We will stop the firm from operating, take possession of all documents and papers held by the firm (including clients' papers), and take possession of all money held by the firm (including clients' money). We are not responsible towards employees or trade creditors of firms that we have intervened in.
The SRA has appointed an agent to deal with all live matters currently being dealt with by GPB Solicitors. The agent will assess all on-going matters and deal with those of greatest need first. The SRA's archive team will take control of all other documents and archived files held by the firm.
Clients of GPB Solicitors who feel they have an urgent matter that needs attending to can contact the agent on 01274 703903

Clients who do not feel they have matters that need urgent attention do not need to contact either the agent or the SRA at this time.
At this stage of the SRA's work, no further details can be disclosed. It is only if disciplinary proceedings become necessary that any information is released into the public domain.