Acknowledge LBC or give correct driver details?

misterman

Hi, I received a letter before claim from GBP solicitors following a ticket from PCN (NW) and subsequent Roxburghe letters which I ignored. The LBC does not does not comply with the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct. The letter is addressed to my wife, the registered keeper of the vehicle, however I was using the car when the ticket was issued. Should I acknowledge the LBC or write to inform them of the correct driver details? Would this reset the process and if so, how far back? Could I make a POPLA claim or would I simply get another LBC in my name? Thanks in advance.

zzzLazyDaisy

First, does the RK live in Scotland? If so you are safe to ignore.

If you live in England or Wales, then....

Yes the registered keeper can still identify the driver, even at this stage. The letter should go to the PPC. Refer them to para 5 of the BPA Code of Practice, and tell them that by identifying the driver, the Registered Keeper has discharged their liability, and if the PPC pursues the threat of court action against the Registered Keeper, the RK will apply to strike out the action on that basis, and seek costs against the PPC.

What happens then is that the PPC send a PCN to the driver - this re-sets the POPLA clock and the driver then needs to appeal to the PPC within the time limit, in the normal way, and get a POPLA verification code, to appeal to POPLA.

There seems to be some confusion about whether these letters from GBP really are a 'letter before claim' in the legal sense, or just another scare tactic - but personally I would never ignore a letter before claim, as a genuine LBC is the first stage in the court process and if ignored, could result in court proceedings being started against you, so I would also reply to the LBC, and point out that the Registered Keeper has identified the driver and accordingly there is no cause of action against the Registered Keeper.

Hope this helps

Daisy

misterman

Thank you that's really helpful, I'll draft the letters right away!

misterman

The letter from GBP states: 'If you were not the driver, we would ask you to provide details of the driver's name and address within the time stated to avoid any further action being taken against you.' So, should I write to GBP to simply say I've informed PCN (NW) of the driver's details, or should I include the actual driver's name / address in the GBP letter, in addition to sending the info to PCN(NW)?

zzzLazyDaisy

You can just send them a copy of your letter to the PPC if you like, it won't do any harm, the important thing is to point out that the RK has discharged its liability under PoFA 2012, and the PPC cannot issue proceedings against the RK.

Stroma

I wouldn't identify anyone, this is a template letter to get you to write to them. This PCN NW has never issued a single claim in the last year, and to my knowledge have never issued a claim at all ever.

Was it roxburghe writing to you before them ? Something is not quite kosher with this company being registered at roxburghe's address as well, like the graham white farce I do think that it could be them writing to you, and they are toothless.

I appreciate what Daisy has written above and this should followed with legitimate businesses writing to you or the principle , but in this case I think ignore is the answer as its highly unlikely to go further

misterman

Thanks for the advice so far. Stroma, what would be the reason for not replying? As I understand the claim process, if I didn't acknowledge the LBC I would hinder my chance if it ended up in court (as unlikely as that may be).

Stroma

The reason is that they cannot issue the claim unless they are representing the principle/landowner , these represent a debt collector only, the alleged debt is not even theirs its PCN NW who they don't represent.

I would be wary writing anything to a debt collector or contacting them in any form, they just want to open a line of communication with anyone over this so they can harass that person, if it alarms them its almost job done as somebody will likely cough up.

It's been a long established tactic from the guys over on pepipoo.com and here not to admit anything to parking companies, we advise writing in the third person and never waiver from that.

But it's you facing this not us, ultimately it's your choice on what you want to do

zzzLazyDaisy

Misterman - in the supposed 'letter before claim', the solicitors must have said who they represent. The letter would say something like 'we are instructed by xyz company in connection with blah blah...'

If xyz company is the debt company, you can ignore the letter.

If xyz company is the private parking company - then you should not ignore.

Dx

zzzLazyDaisy

Misterman - just as a follow up to my last post....

Please could you come back and let us know if the solicitors have stated that they are writing on behalf of the debt collectors (or otherwise indicate that their client is the debt collection company and not the parking company) as in that case labelling the letter a 'letter before claim' is grossly misleading, and I consider that a complaint to the solicitors regulatory authority would be in order.

Thanks

Daisy

misterman

Hi, the top of the letter reads:

Re: PCN(NW) LTD, VRM: ****, Total Amount Due: ****

Then the first line reads: 'We act for the above named to whom you are indebted in the sum as stated above for a parking charge as indicated by the PCN (full details overleaf) where you have failed to make payment or give a valid reason for non-payemnt'.

This, I assume, means GBP are writing on behalf of PCN(NW). Also confirmed by the second line: 'We understand that our client's agent Roxburghe (UK) Limited has written to you to request payment to recover the money owed and that you have failed to make any payment despite their requests for you to do so'.

So, it looks like the PPC are the client. The RK was not the driver and the LBC doesn't comply with the Practice Direction. I think I'll write to the PPC and give them the driver's details and send a copy to GBP as advised. Or go down the 'acknowledge LBC / doesn't comply with PD' route?? Thanks for all help so far!