ParkingEye Letter Before Action - what to do next

zzzLazyDaisy

mgxrmw wrote: »

Also it may be worth adding that I can't seem to get an address for the car park owners anywhere, and PE don't seem keen to give me one!

If it is a retail park, you should do a google search for the managing agents. They are contracted to manage the retail park, and they have the power to order the PPC to cancel the charge. Start with the website for the retail park - it may give details of the managing agents, or there may be a telephone number for customer information.

Also, have you sent copies of the receipts/proofs of purchase to PE? If not, that is definitely worth doing as we have had some success with this. I will include something about this in my draft letter for you.

Daisy

mgxrmw

I have managed to find a telephone number for the car park security office, I will give this a try today. I have proof of purchases on my bank statement, I could send that, though I didn't spend a vast amount of money - due to miserable baby!!

Thanks very much for your help, look forward to hearing from you x

zzzLazyDaisy

Hi, here is a letter to PE. Please leave it up for a while, so the regular posters have chance to suggest any additions / amendments. Daisy

Edit - when you send in copies of proofs of purchase, make sure you delete any personal information that is not relevant to this matter.

---

Letter to Parking Eye:

ParkingEye Ltd
Legal Dept
ADDRESS

DATE

QUOTE THE REFERENCE ON THEIR LETTER

Dear Sirs

Re: threat of county court action: Vehicle reg xxxxxxxx


This is my third letter to you about this matter. You responded to my first two letters with template letters which completely failed to address the issues that I had raised. I would therefore appreciate it if you would actually read and respond to this letter. PLEASE DO NOT reply with yet another template letter.


For your information my main points are:

1) On the day in question the Driver was shopping at [x] retail park. Some of the stores visited were [insert names of stores]. The shopping trip was hampered by a sick and crying baby which (as I am sure you can imagine) meant that it took a lot longer to do the shopping than might otherwise have been the case. I enclose copies of the proofs of purchase to prove that the Driver was a genuine customer of the stores in the retail park on the day in question.

In the circumstances outlined in the paragraph above, I invite you to reconsider your position and cancel this charge.

2) In my earlier letter I also advised you that part of the reason for the Driver taking such a long time on the day in question was that I was breastfeeding and attending to my sick baby. In fact the following day my baby was admitted to hospital. Despite this you have continued to harass me with letters demanding payment and threatening court action. I consider your conduct to amount to unlawful harassment under the Equality Act 2010.

In the circumstances outlined in the paragraph above, I invite you to reconsider your position and cancel this charge.

Please note: if, notwithstanding the information provided above, you refuse to cancel this charge, I shall seek advice with a view to commencing county court proceedings against your company and also against your Principal (which you appear to be claiming has approved of and authorised your actions). Should you you continue to refuse to reveal the identity of your Principal I shall commence the action against your company as sole defendant and shall immediately ask the court to order you to provide a copy of your contract with your Principal authorising you to pursue me in this way, so that your Principal may be joined in as a second defendant to the action. Therefore, immediately upon receipt of this letter, you should forward a copy of this letter to your Principal to notify it of the impending court action against it under the Equality Act 2010.

3) I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on your most recent letter, entitled 'Letter Before County Court Action'. Not only does your letter completely fail to address any of the issues raised in my earlier letters, but it states that it is 'fully compliant' with the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct. If you had taken the time to read my earlier letters (or indeed if you had taken the time to read the Practice Direction itself) you should be aware that your letter is very far from being 'fully compliant' with the Practice Direction'.

Since your letter originates from a Legal Department which is presumably staffed by qualified legal professionals, I can only conclude that this statement is a deliberate attempt to mislead, and as such is a clear breach of the principles set down by your regulatory authority. Should you insist on pursuing this claim against me, I shall make a formal complaint about your conduct of this matter to the SRA, together with a full set of the correspondence that has passed between us and a detailed breakdown of each and every way in which I consider your Legal Department to have flaunted and manipulated the Practice Direction to your own ends.

I will also copy this set of correspondence to the Northampton County Court, as I feel strongly that the legal authorities should be made aware of your refusal to respond to reasonable requests for information and/or to comply with court procedures.

I sincerely hope that this will not be necessary and I look forward to hearing from you within 14 days with confirmation that this charge has now been cancelled.

Yours faithfully
PRINT NAME

nigelbb

Should you you continue to reveal the identity of your Principal I shall commence the action against your company as sole defendant

I think that should be conceal

zzzLazyDaisy

Thanks Nigel! It should say 'continue to refuse to reveal' - letter now corrected!

Daisy

Umkomaas

Awesome Daisy, and I do mean that literally, not in the sense that seems to have gripped the USA as in 'my gawd, this pizza is orsome' :T

mgxrmw

Thank you very much :-)

One more thing, does anyone know for sure if the POPLA process must be done by 28 days? As they are still claiming that it must ...

Thanks

zzzLazyDaisy

mgxrmw wrote: »

Thank you very much :-)

One more thing, does anyone know for sure if the POPLA process must be done by 28 days? As they are still claiming that it must ...

Thanks

The 28 days is a self imposed time limit, which it suits the PPCs to enforce.

See my comments about this and the rest of the claims made in the LBCCC at post 4 of this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4754020

But in my view, as this is their third attempt to fob you off with non-compliant rubbish, the matter has gone beyond a simple 'oversight' or 'misunderstanding'.

In my view this is a deliberate course of conduct intended to deceive and clearly falls foul of the Principles set out at Version 7 of the SRA Handbook published in April of this year. PE's Legal Department's supervising solicitor Rachel Ledson is responsible for monitoring correspondence in and out of the Legal Department and ensuring that the conduct of the paralegals under her supervision complies with the SRA requirements.

There comes a point when a formal complaint should be made to the Regulatory Authority, and I suggest that if they do not cancel the charge, you do just that (I am happy to help you, and anyone else, to do just that).

Are you reading [text removed by MSE Forum Team]? Do you REALLY want to put your practising certificate on the line for the sake of these scammers? If not, I suggest you grow a backbone and get this charge cancelled!

Daisy

spacey2012

To Be honest daisy, she should have thought about that when she got in to bed with helping a company making illicit penalty demands.
She should be reported to the SRA each and every time her office abuses the legal process and so should anyone else working for this company.

They do not deserve any chances, they know what they sign up for.
If solicitors putting their name to PPC lose their practising certificates, they may think twice about working with companies that are basically scamming people.

zzzLazyDaisy

spacey2012 wrote: »

To Be honest daisy, she should have thought about that when she got in to bed with helping a company making illicit penalty demands.
She should be reported to the SRA each and every time her office abuses the legal process and so should anyone else working for this company.

They do not deserve any chances, they know what they sign up for.
If solicitors putting their name to PPC lose their practising certificates, they may think twice about working with companies that are basically scamming people.

I agree. Absolutely, I agree. As a (retired) solicitor I am honestly appalled by their conduct and the way in which they are bringing the legal profession into disrepute. Which is why I spend so much time on here, attempting to redress the balance.

But from a pragmatic point of view, there is no more chance of the SRA doing something about an isolated misdrafted letter, than me flying to the moon (and I don't hold out much hope of them linking isolated complaints either).

On the other hand, if there is a clear and deliberate course of conduct - such as three deliberately misleading letters as in this case - that gives the SRA something to get their teeth into.

For any of our earlier posters reading this who got their earlier 'Stinky Template Letter' in response to your Acknowledgment and has now had another letter from them, this applies to you.

The more people who make formal complaints, the more likely it is that the SRA will take those complaints seriously.

Daisy