Parking Eye LBA - Response

zzzLazyDaisy

Hi Geoff - you are still getting your 'claimant' and 'defendant' mixed up

Also, you are writing to PE legal department, whose client is PE parking company ...Yes... it is confusing....don't worry about it

Seriously you are doing a great job! Just a few tweaks - see comments below.

Please amend your letter and re-post.

Daisy

---

First - remember to quote their reference number as well as yr reg number.

Then make the following changes:


[STRIKE]The claimant is therefore advised to invite its[/STRIKE] You are therefore invited to advise your client to cancel the charge, on the basis that the PCN is defective and does not give [STRIKE]its[/STRIKE] your client the right to proceed with the claim against the Registered Keeper.

If the claimant [STRIKE]still wishes to pursue[/STRIKE] refuses to withdraw its claim in light of this, the defendant asks [STRIKE]they consider and act upon the following points. [/STRIKE] you to note that [STRIKE]The[/STRIKE] your LBA [STRIKE]received from the claimant [/STRIKE]does not comply with the requirements set out in Section 7 of the PD, meaning the defendant is unable to comply with the PD until [STRIKE]further [/STRIKE]full and complete information is received.

Firstly, the claimant is required to refer the defendant to the PD so they may provide an appropriate response. The claimant's letter makes no mention of the PD. This has caused the Defendant (an individual with no legal training) to have to seek advice which would not have been necessary had your letter referred to the PD as required. The defendant would ask you to note that this matter will be brought to the attention of the court, should your client choose to start proceedings against the defendant.

(your paras on loss, documents & ADR are fine - then continue........)


Further, in order to facilitate a full response, the defendant requires the claimant to provide the following information in accordance with Section 7 of the PD.

1. The name and address of the individual, company or entity which contracted the claimant to provide car parking services.
2. The name and address of the landlord or landowner if different from [STRIKE](2)[/STRIKE]. (1)
3. A copy of the contract authorising the claimant to offer parking contracts on behalf of its client and pursue litigation on their behalf.
4. To clarify whether the claim is based on a breach of contract, a tort of trespass or action on an unpaid debt invoice. If the former, the claimant must provide a genuine pre-estimate of loss showing how this is calculated, if it is based on the latter the claimant must identify the loss and provide a VAT number.
[STRIKE]5. A full and detailed breakdown of the losses said to have been caused to the defendant as a result of the incident alleged.
6. A full and detailed breakdown of the losses said to have been caused to the claimant's client and/or the landowner as a result of the incident alleged.[/STRIKE]
7. [STRIKE]An explanation[/STRIKE] A clear account of how the defendant claims to have [STRIKE]has [/STRIKE]satisfied requirements of schedule 4 under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, bearing in mind that the claimant's LBA does not identify a creditor, as required under paragraph 9 (2)(h) and the claimant's signage also appears to be non-compliant
[STRIKE]8. A full VAT invoice for the parking charge.[/STRIKE]
[STRIKE]9. A copy of the contract the defendant is said to have agreed to.[/STRIKE]
10. Evidence that ANPR equipment owned and operated by the claimant was properly serviced and maintained in the lead-up to the alleged incident and compliant with the BPA code of practice
[STRIKE]11. A comprehensive overview of signage at the location of the alleged incident, including details of placement and wording at the time it was said to have taken place.[/STRIKE] (Note - save this point for the response, should we get that far)

The defendant [STRIKE]requests[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]that[/STRIKE] requires the claimant reply to this letter, [STRIKE]complying with the above requests,[/STRIKE] providing full and complete information in compliance with the PD within 14 days of receiving it. The defendant will then provide a response within 30 days once the information in this letter has been received.

Alternatively, the claimant is once again reminded they may simply cancel the parking charge.

Regards,

MY NAME

GeoffBungle

Thank you again, Daisy. Please find an amended version below.

Car reg: XXXXXXXX

Your ref: XXXXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in response to your 'Letter Before Action' (LBA) dated xx/xx/xx, reference XXXXXX. As per the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (PD), please take this letter as a formal acknowledgement of the aforementioned correspondence, received by [MY NAME] ('the defendant') on 29/07/2013.

Firstly, the defendant would draw to Parking Eye's ('the claimant's) attention the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced in its LBA does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA') in that it does not identify the creditor.

The defendant would point out that PoFA expressly states the claimant must comply with ALL the provisions outlined in the legislation in order to pursue a claim against the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle in question (ie the defendant in this case). The defendant therefore asserts on that basis the claimant does not have a case against the RK

The claimant is further advised that, should they initiate court proceedings, the defendant will make an immediate strike out application to the court, together with an application for costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g), on the basis that the claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing the claim against the defendant as the Registered Keeper.

You are therefore invited to advise your client to cancel the charge, on the basis that the PCN is defective and does not give your client the right to proceed with the claim against the Registered Keeper.

If the claimant refuses to withdraw its claim in light of this, the defendant asks you to note that your LBA does not comply with the requirements set out in Section 7 of the PD, meaning the defendant is unable to comply with the PD until full and complete information is received.

Firstly, the claimant is required to refer the defendant to the PD so they may construct an appropriate response. The claimant's letter makes no mention of the PD. This has caused the Defendant (an individual with no legal training) to have to seek advice which would not have been necessary had your letter referred to the PD as required. The defendant would ask you to note that this matter will be brought to the attention of the court, should your client choose to start proceedings against the defendant.

The PD also states the claimant's LBA must provide a detailed breakdown of how any losses have been calculated so the defendant may construct a full response. Again, the claimant's letter fails to do so.

A claimant is also required, in line with the PD, to provide details of any documents they plan to rely on if court proceedings go ahead. Such a list was not included in the claimant's LBA and therefore the defendant is unable to fulfill their obligations under the PD until one is provided.

It is also incumbent upon both parties to explore other ways to resolve the matter before resorting to court action. Section 8 of the PD advises that methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) should be exhausted before the 'last resort' of court action is taken. To this end, the claimant is invited to provide a Parking On Private Land Appeals Service (‘POPLA’) code in the hope that a resolution can be reached outside of court. The defendant would take this opportunity to point out that this independent appeals body was not mentioned in the claimant's LBA.

Alternatively, the claimant is invited to cancel the parking charge.

Further, in order to facilitate a full response, the defendant requires the claimant to provide the following information in accordance with Section 7 of the PD.

1. The name and address of the individual, company or entity which contracted the claimant to provide car parking services.
2. The name and address of the landlord or landowner if different from (2).
3. A copy of the contract authorising the claimant to offer parking contracts on behalf of its client and pursue litigation on their behalf.
4. To clarify whether the claim is based on a breach of contract, a tort of trespass or action on an unpaid debt invoice. If the former, the claimant must provide a genuine pre-estimate of loss showing how this is calculated, if it is based on the latter the claimant must identify the loss and provide a VAT number.
5. A clear account of how the defendant claims to have satisfied requirements of schedule 4 under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, bearing in mind that the claimant's LBA does not identify a creditor, as required under paragraph 9 (2)(h) and the claimant's signage also appears to be non-compliant.
6. Evidence that ANPR equipment owned and operated by the claimant was properly serviced and maintained in the lead-up to the alleged incident and compliant with the BPA code of practice


The defendant requires that the claimant reply to this letter, providing full and complete information in compliance with the PD, within 14 days of receiving it. The defendant will then provide a response within 30 days once the information in this letter has been received.

Alternatively, the claimant is once again reminded they may simply cancel the parking charge.

Regards,

MY NAME

zzzLazyDaisy

Hi Geoff, this is fine and ready to go. Before you send it, you might want to know that PE is responding to these robust Acknowledgments with a rabid and aggressive template letter. It doesn't take the matter any further, and will need a follow up. However their letter does then form part of the court process and I suspect that the small claims court will be very under-impressed to see them attacking unrepresented individuals in that way. So if you don't mind being on the receiving end of their vitriol, go ahead and send your letter.

On the other hand, you might want to take a softer approach, in which case go back to the guidance thread, read the first part of the first post (in blue) and then go to post 45 and follow the instructions there.

I don't mind which you choose. Either way is valid, and either way we'll deal with their reply when it arrives.

Daisy.

trisontana

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

However their letter does then form part of the court process and I suspect that the small claims court will be very under-impressed to see them attacking unrepresented individuals in that way. So if you don't mind being on the receiving end of their vitriol, go ahead and send your letter.

Daisy.

Especially as this is the small claims court which I thought was there for Joe public to be treated fairly and semi-informally, and not be bombarded with pages of pseudo-legal clap-trap. Mind you, PE did once turn up with four legal reps from Pannone and just ended up with a £15 payment plus less than £96 in costs, even though they were claiming thousands

GeoffBungle

Hello all,

Thanks again for all your advice so far. I sent an acknowledgement and have today received the standard PE template with the opening paragraph about how I'm 'well-versed' in the PD, etc.

I've clocked Daisy's template on another thread detailing how best to respond to this letter. I'm minded to use it as a model for a letter written in my own words so as to further discredit their accusations of using a pre-written template.

Would it be ok to post that here for one of the experience members to give it a once-over? Or would it be best to PM it so it isn't seen by Park...I mean, Prying Eyes? If it helps other people in the same position I don't mind it being in the public domain (as long as it won't harm my case if things get that far.

Cheers,

Geoff

Coupon-mad

Please do post it here, I seem to have mislaid that template and there are loads of other LBA cases on the thread who need it too.

PE will see it soon enough so no need for pm's (and I am not taking them at the moment due to a serious family issue, sorry).

GeoffBungle

Hi again,

I've come at this from a slightly different angle this time - having reviewed the original LBA I noticed it was not addressed correctly (it actually had my middle name as my surname). I remembered received other similarly addressed letters which I just chucked in the bin, assuming they were junk. As the LBA was the first I heard of this parking charge I assume those were the 'previous correspondence' they mentioned in their reply to my acknowledgement.

Let me know what you think. At any rate they can't accuse me of using a template!

Geoff

Your reference: XXXXXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in response to your template letter received on XX/XX/XX in response to an acknowledgement of your Letter Before Action (LBA) sent by MY NAME ('the defendant') on XX/XX/XX.

Whilst Parking Eye asserts its LBA was compliant with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (PD), the defendant would disagree, particularly in reference to the issue of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for the reasons outlined below.

Paragraph 1.1 (1) of the PD states that key purpose of the document is to "enable parties to settle the issue between them without the need to start proceedings (that is, a court claim)".

The PD then goes on to state in paragraph 1.2 (2) that parties are encouraged to "consider using a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (‘ADR’)" with a view to avoiding court proceedings.

In previous correspondence you have mentioned both Parking Eye appeals and the independent Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service.

While the defendant accepts correspondence was not entered into within Parking Eye's own 28-day deadline for its own in-house appeals service, he offers the following explanation for this.

All letters received in relation to this parking charge, up to and including the LBA, were addressed to Mr FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME, with no surname included in the addressee line.

As such, the defendant dismissed said correspondence as junk mail and discarded it unopened. As there were no markings on the envelope containing the LBA to alert the recipient to the fact it contained a letter requiring urgent attention within 14 days the defendant can only assume all other correspondence was similarly plain.

The LBA was only opened by chance when the defendant saw a reference number through the cellophane window of the envelope containing said letter and discovered its contents - after which time he took prompt and appropriate action, of which Parking Eye has a record.

The defendant accepts in good faith Parking Eye's assertion in its last letter that it sent "several items of correspondence" - though he does not have these in his possession - which he can only assume replicated the mistake found on the LBA.

Therefore, the defendant would submit that he has not had the chance to explore fully potential avenues of ADR because the matter of this parking charge was only brought to his attention after the time limit for an appeal had expired.

The defendant therefore invites Parking Eye to use its discretion in allowing an appeal to be submitted on the basis its initial correspondence was incorrectly addressed and therefore defective. Had Parking Eye's letters been properly addressed and marked in such a way as to distinguish them from other unsolicited post received by the defendant on a regular basis then he would have responded in a timely and appropriate fashion.

As an individual with no legal training, the defendant is by no-means 'well-versed' in the PD. He is, however, keen to comply with its recommendation that both parties take reasonable steps to avoid court action. To that end, he invites Parking Eye to allow an appeal via its own process, or to issue a POPLA code so the matter may be referred for independent adjudication. Until these routes are explored the defendant would submit that all avenues of ADR can not be said to have been exhausted and the steps in the PD have therefore not been satisfied.

Alternatively, you may simply cancel the parking charge.

Yours Sincerely,

MY NAME

Guys_Dad

Now where have I heard something similar before??

Baldrick:-Damn! Message from HQ, sir.

Blackadder:-Ah, now, this'll be it.

George:-A telegram ordering an advance!

Blackadder:-Hmm, yes, I'm afraid not, George.
It "is" a telegram,|it "is" ordering an advance, but it seems to be addressed to someone|called 'Catpain Blackudder'.
Do you know|a Catpain Blackudder, George?

George:-Well, it rings a bell, but -no.
Baldrick:-- Nope, me neither.
|- Oh, well.
Blackadder:- Anyway, George, I'm sure|if they want to contact us, they'll find a way.

Stand by for the pigeon next

Coupon-mad

You will get this one next:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4736170

So be ready for it but in the meantime try to get the same good outcome as reported at the end of that thread!

zzzLazyDaisy

Sorry for the quickie, but if you go to post 32 on this thread, you'll see my comments, Dx

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4730763