Excel Parking - Letter Before Action

pilch1984

Hello,

I have recently received a letter before action from Excel Parking for parking offences (staying for longer than the 3 hours permitted) dating back to December 2009 and March 2010. I have never received a PCN for any of these offences but this may have been due to a delay in me updating the address details with the DVLA for the registered keeper of the car. This was updated in late 2010 and i have had nothing relating to these parking offences since that time and nothing previous was sent on from my previous address. They have now asked for payment of £300 before going to court. The text is as follows (all names and details removed):

Our Ref:

Date:


Letter Before Action


Dear

Vehicle Registration Mark:

Parking Charge Notices:

We write with regard to the outstanding Parking Charge Notices listed below:-

£100.00
£100.00
£100.00

We note from reviewing our records that these Parking Charge Notices are still outstanding and must advise that we are not prepared to leave this matter in abeyance any longer. You have failed to respond to all previous correspondence and requests for payment of your outstanding liabilities as detailed above; you now have fourteen (14) days to settle the balance of £300.00 in full.

Please be advised that if the full outstanding amount is not received then Court Proceedings will be
issued without further notice and additional fees will be accrued.

We hope legal action is not necessary and that this matter can be concluded amicably. Yours sincerely



Debt Administrator


I've never been in this position before and I'm unsure how to proceed. Any advice would be gratefully received.

Guys_Dad

Shamelessly copied from another thread

Do some reading on the following thread as it will give you some advice on how to proceed with this in the correct (legal) manner.

Come back if there are some things you want further advice on.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4733063

zzzLazyDaisy

OP are you the registered keeper?

If so when acknowledging the letter before action, I would insert a para saying aomething like

'having taken some preliminary advice, it has been pointed out to me that all the alleged 'offences' pre-date PoFA 2012, therefore the PPC has no legal standing to pursue the Registered Keeper. Should they persist in their threat to commence proceedings against the Registered Keeper, an immediate application will be made for an order striking out the claim and an order that the claimant pay the defendant's wasted costs as a result of the claimant's unreasonable conduct, under CPR rule 27.14(2)(g).

Then continue as per the instructions in the above thread.

Daisy

pilch1984

Thanks for your replies. I was just browsing another thread about this and I think there was a mention of neglecting to inform the dvla of a change of address which may affect compliance of the practice document. The incidents happened around the time I moved house. I did contact the dvla to update my licence but it didn't occur to me to send off the car registration document until I failed to get a car tax reminder through the post in October 2010. As soon as I realised, I sent the registration document to the dvla. I am speculating that this is the reason I didn't receive a PCN or further correspondence. However all details were up to date from October 2010 and I've had nothing until this letter.Will this have any impact on this and my own compliance?

pilch1984

Well, here's my first attempt at a draft. I'm grateful for any advice...

Dear …
I (the defendant) am writing to acknowledge receipt of your (the claimant) letter before action dated xxx. The defendant wants to make it clear that they do not have any legal representation and this letter is based on personal research and advice from online forums.

The defendant would like to draw the claimant’s attention to the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct produced by the Ministry of Justice (link to practice direction) which outlines what the letter before action should contain. Annexe A details what is required and it is clear that the claimant’s letter is non-compliant with the Practice Direction on a number of points.

1) The letter does not provide information on the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable).

2) The letter does not provide a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based only that a sum of money is owed to the claimant.

3) The letter does not include an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.

4) The letter does not list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely on in court. The defendant cannot provide a full response without this information.

5) The letter does not set out the form of Alternative Dispute Resolution that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this. The Practice Direction is clear that court action should be considered as a last resort. There is no mention of the Parking On Private Land Appeals Service (POPLA) and a POPLA reference number was not provided.

6) The letter does not state the date by which the claimant considers it reasonable for a full response to be provided by the defendant. The letter only mentions that payment should be provided in full within 14 days.

Additionally, as the claimant had no knowledge of whether or not the defendant had legal representation when the letter before action was sent, the Practice Direction clearly states that the letter before action should

“…refer the defendant to this Practice Direction and in particular draw attention to paragraph 4 concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction.”

The letter before action makes no reference to the Practice Direction at all. Until the letter before action is compliant with the Practice Direction, the defendant is unable to provide a full response.

Preliminary advice has also made me aware that all the alleged 'offences' pre-date PoFA 2012, therefore the PPC has no legal standing to pursue the Registered Keeper. Should they persist in their threat to commence proceedings against the Registered Keeper, an immediate application will be made for an order striking out the claim and an order that the claimant pay the defendant's wasted costs as a result of the claimant's unreasonable conduct, under CPR rule 27.14(2)(g).

Alternatively, you may simply cancel the parking charge.

I would be grateful if you could respond to this letter within 14 days.

Yours Sincerely…

zzzLazyDaisy

Great first attempt! Well done!! :j

I have no concerns about the DVLA points you raise.

Just a few fairly minor changes to the letter. I have highlighted the changes n blue. Also you make reference to inserting the link to the PD - I have highlighted this in red to remind you!

Dear Sir

Your ref

I (the defendant) am writing to acknowledge receipt of your (the claimant) letter before action dated xxx. The defendant wants to make it clear that they do not have any legal representation and this letter is based on personal research and advice from online forums.

The defendant would like to draw the claimant’s attention to the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct produced by the Ministry of Justice (insert link to practice direction) which outlines what the letter before action should contain. Annexe A details what is required and it is clear that the claimant’s letter is non-compliant with the Practice Direction on a number of points:

1) The letter does not provide information on the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable). Therefore please advise me the basis of the claim - ie breach of contract; trespass, money owed under a contractual invoice, or some other basis?

2) The letter does not provide a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based only that a sum of money is owed to the claimant. As this claim relates to three separate events which occurred some years ago, it is unreasonable to expect me to recall these events without a summary of the facts that are alleged to have occurred. Therefore please provide the necessary information

3) The letter does not include an explanation of how the [STRIKE]amount[/STRIKE] loss has been calculated. Please therefore provide a clear explanation of the losses claimed including details of how they have been calculated.

4) The letter does not list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely on in court. The defendant cannot provide a full response without this information. Please therefore enclose a full and complete list of the documents you intend to rely on in court.

5) The letter does not set out the form of Alternative Dispute Resolution that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this. The Practice Direction is clear that court action should be considered as a last resort. There is no mention of the Parking On Private Land Appeals Service (POPLA) and a POPLA reference number was not provided. The defendant agrees to have these disputes referred to POPLA

6) The letter does not state the date by which the claimant considers it reasonable for a full response to be provided by the defendant. The letter only mentions that payment should be provided in full within 14 days, this is a much shorter time than is allowed by the practice direction. Since this is a complex case, the defendant may wish to seek advice once you have provided the necessary information, and therefore I confirm that the defendant will provide a Reponse within 30 days of receiving from you the full and complete information prescribed by the practice direction

In the light of the serious omissions in the Claimant's letter before action, I wish to draw your attention to paragraph 4 of the Practice Direction concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction.”

The letter before action makes no reference to the Practice Direction at all. Until the letter before action is compliant with the Practice Direction, the defendant is unable to provide a full response.

Finally please note that, since all the alleged 'offences' pre-date PoFA 2012, it is the defendant's case that the claimant has no legal standing to pursue the defendant, who is the Registered Keeper. Should the claimant persist in its threat to commence proceedings against the Registered Keeper, an immediate application will be made for an order striking out the claim and an order that the claimant pay the defendant's wasted costs as a result of the claimant's unreasonable conduct, under CPR rule 27.14(2)(g).

[/COLOR]
I look forward to receiving your full reply within 14 days.

Alternatively, you may simply cancel the parking charge.



Yours faithfully

PRINT NAME

The_Slithy_Tove

Should the acknowledgement highlight more prominently that the defendant WAS NOT the driver at the time, and therefore is not in any way liable? I know the last para alludes to that, but stating it clearly may make them think twice about proceeding.

Guys_Dad

Please remember that in the first few months of this year, unlike Parking Eye, Excel have only had 20 court cases in total.

zzzLazyDaisy

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Should the acknowledgement highlight more prominently that the defendant WAS NOT the driver at the time, and therefore is not in any way liable? I know the last para alludes to that, but stating it clearly may make them think twice about proceeding.

Hi, this is a good point.

However, at the moment I am inclined to leave the letter as it is.

Why? because, under the old law which was in force at the time (and which is still the current law in Scotland) the PPC MUST pursue the driver. It cannot start proceedings against a Registered Keeper, full stop. Hence the old advice to just ignore. Unless the RK volunteers who the driver was, they are stymied, because the RK is not under any obligation at all to disclose the driver's details.

Also as GD points out Excell are a low user of the court system to enforce these things, so it is very likely that a robust reply will send them after easier targets.

pilch1984

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Should the acknowledgement highlight more prominently that the defendant WAS NOT the driver at the time, and therefore is not in any way liable? I know the last para alludes to that, but stating it clearly may make them think twice about proceeding.

I'm not sure if i was clear in what i wrote about the dvla stuff. The car was registered to me before the date of the tickets. It's simply that I moved house around that time and although i informed the dvla of a change of address (my licence was updated), i hadn't realised at that time that i needed to send off the registration document too. I naively thought that all of the dvla departments would speak to each other as it is the first car that i have owned. Lesson learnt there! As soon as i realised that i'd made an error, i sent it off to the dvla but it wasn't until the following year...

Is that paragraph still relevant?

zzzLazyDaisy

Yes I understood that, but at the time of the 'offences' you were the registered keeper (and presumably you still are the registered keeper?).

The relevance of this is that until the law changed on 1st October 2012, the PPC had NO legal right to sue the registered keeper in court. None at all. They could ONLY sue the driver - and the registered keeper had NO legal obligation to tell them who the driver was. That is why all the advice was - keep quite and just ignore them.

After the law changed in 2012, the PPC can now take the registered keeper to court if it doesn't know who the driver is. BUT this ONLY applies to PCN's issued after 1st Oct 2012. Any PCNs issued before 1st October 2012 still come under the old law. So the court should just throw the case out (if it got to court).

So that is why the paragraph about the registered keeper is relevant.

But it would be risky to put all your eggs in one basket, which is why we deal with ALL the mistakes in the LBA - not just that one.

Is that clearer now?

D