LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM - Parking Eye

Lazos

4consumerrights wrote: »

With regards to the letter to Parking Eye - I am assuming that you did give 14 days response time? Again I would give a day or so leaway before making another formal complaint - to Parking Eye -

stating:

I know give you formal notice that a clear response is required within 7 days of this letter as my earlier letter of xxxxxxx has been ignored. In view of new information that has come to light regarding this case, may I suggest that you cancel this parking charge to mitigate any losses you incur and to save any further embarassment in this matter.

Please note that should you continue to pursue me in this matter then any claim will be rigourously defended and I may consider raising a counterclaim against you.

I look forward to receiving your written confirmation that there is no outstanding charge to be paid by .........., failing which I will have no alternative but to also made a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding the conduct of your legal department.

I gave "14 days from receipt of this letter"-Which recorded delivery advised me was the 10th.

I have advised in two letters that I will be complaining to the SRA. This one is my final straw and I wll be going that route if my reply is not recieved by Monday(2 days for postage).

I will take your advice though(as it has always been great) 4CR and follow up with a final letter.

Thank you.

Lazos

This is a semi-BUMP for the purposes of forum newbie SNAP. Same Car Park I believe-If you're reading this, pages 2-3 have the information that might aide you. I also have contact details of whom we believe is the Landowner, if you so require(PM me if you would like them)

Also I have update. 14 days, and an allowance of two working days for postage, no response received!

So many options now, I don't even know where to start!

zzzLazyDaisy

Lazos wrote: »

So many options now, I don't even know where to start!

Have you reported Rachel Ledson (PE's 'Head of Legal Services') to the SRA yet?

If not, I suggest that you make that your next step.

You need to print off and complete the complaint report form and send it to the address given. (see link below)

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor.page#how-report-sra

Complain that Ms Ledson has failed to comply with the SRA Principles by which all solicitors are bound. Specifically she has failed to conduct herself with integrity, and she has allowed her independence to be compromised by the demands of her employer/client, and she has failed to behave in a way that maintains the trust that the public places in members of the legal profession who have a duty towards the court to adhere to and uphold the law of the land. Specifically Ms Ledson - and the legal department for which she is responsible - have refused to comply with the pre-action protocol set down by the Ministry of Justice. They also fail and/or refuse to reply to your letters attempting to resolve this dispute without the need for court action, instead of which they bombard you with standard template letters and irrelevant information which ignores the points you have raised and is clearly designed to intimidate you into paying the money demanded by their client, regardless of the facts and/or the relevant law. You might also want to add that you are aware that concerns are being expressed by the judiciary about the conduct of cases that are being pursued in the small claims courts throughout the country by PE (conducted by Ms Ledson and her team).

Include copies of all LBCCC related correspondence between you and PE.

Note - you may or may not get a detailed response from SRA (probably not) but the more complaints that are received the higher the prospects of a formal investigation. Solicitors, and their practices and departments have been closed down and solicitors disciplined for breach of the solicitor's principles

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/handbookprinciples/content.page

Daisy

Welsh_Exile

4consumerrights wrote: »

.. snip..
I know give you formal notice that a clear response is required within 7 days of this letter as my earlier letter of xxxxxxx has been ignored. .....

Ahem - "now" not "know"

4consumerrights

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

Ahem - "now" not "know"

Typos are sometimes a bonus extra - to ensure letters are not blindly copied and pasted and for Eye Spy's benefit - ( cannot state forum letters;))

You spotted one - but missed the other:

Originally Posted by 4consumerrights

I know give you formal notice that a clear response is required within 7 days of this letter as my earlier letter of xxxxxxx has been ignored. In view of new information that has come to light regarding this case, may I suggest that you cancel this parking charge to mitigate any losses you incur and to save any further embarassment in this matter.

Please note that should you continue to pursue me in this matter then any claim will be rigourously defended and I may consider raising a counterclaim against you.

I look forward to receiving your written confirmation that there is no outstanding charge to be paid by .........., failing which I will have no alternative but to also made a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding the conduct of your legal department.

made - make

****************************

Lazos wrote: »

I gave "14 days from receipt of this letter"-Which recorded delivery advised me was the 10th.

I have advised in two letters that I will be complaining to the SRA. This one is my final straw and I wll be going that route if my reply is not recieved by Monday(2 days for postage).

I will take your advice though(as it has always been great) 4CR and follow up with a final letter.

Thank you.

Lazos - I was unaware that you had already advised twice that you would be complaining to the SRA so alter the wording above to reflect this and enlcose a copy of Daisy's letter above:

Todate, I have not yet received a response to my letter dated........, requesting that this matter is resolved via POPLA and to prevent court action.

I have informed you now on two separate occasions that your in house solicitor, Rachel Ledson and the legal team would be reported to the SRA for their conduct in handling this case. A complaint is now being made and a copy of that letter is enclosed herewith.

In view of new information that has come to light regarding this case, may I suggest that you cancel this parking charge immediately to mitigate any losses you incur and to save any further embarassment in this matter.

Please note that should you continue to pursue me in this matter then any claim will be rigourously defended and I may consider raising a counterclaim against you.

I therefore look forward to hearing from you within the next 7 days, by ............., that the parking charge has been cancelled and no further action will be taken in this matter.

Lazos

SRA complaint sent.

SNAP

Trebor16 wrote: »

I just checked and her profile is still up on LinkedIn. It also comes up with the following:-

Christopher Lee, civil engineering manager

Bryan Malcolm, sales manager

James Diss, UK commercial manager

Dominic Dawson, research and development specialist

Zoe Staziker, account manager

Wesley Button, sales manager

Rachel L, head of legal services (interesting that she lists her employer as "a car park operator")

Rachel L is Ledson Rachel Ledson this is the person who was noted as the Claimants Solicitor on the 'Claim Form' I got from the CCBC... IF she is a solicitor would she list herself as simply head of legal services?

Please correct me if I am wrong as I am not very technically knowledgable I just thought it was a little strange...

zzzLazyDaisy

SNAP wrote: »

Rachel L is Ledson Rachel Ledson this is the person who was noted as the Claimants Solicitor on the 'Claim Form' I got from the CCBC... IF she is a solicitor would she list herself as simply head of legal services?.

She is the solicitor in charge of PE's in house 'legal department' so 'Head of Legal Services' is simply her title.

Lazos

Well...We're back again.

Following my CM complaint letter and another letter I sent, ParkingEye have sent me another letter.

Paragraph by paragraph summary, it reads:

1. I appear to not believe that payment is outstanding. 'We' are not in a position to mediate this claim. PE have no alternative except to issue court proceedings.

2. Unable to refer to POPLA due to my inaction. Open to alternative ADR if legal action is taken (Interesting)

3. Matter is not settled within 14 days MAY issue court proceedings.

4. PE believes that they have a locus to bring the case against me as their was signage.

5. Signage does create a valid contract between myself and PE. As this contract is between the motorist and PE they have full legal standing to bring a claim in their own name (Vine V London Borough of Waltham Forest (2000), CPS v De Brunner (2007), CPS v Dorrington (2012), CPS V Blackburn (2007) and CPS V Rees (2007))

6. PE are liable on the contract as they disclosed themselves as an agent acting on behalf of a principal. Therefore entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party (Fairlie V Fenton (1870) and VCS vs HMRC (2013)

7. Confirms full authorisation of land owner, only operates on private land and has written authority (Thats interesting PE because I have it in writting the Landowner has NO IDEA that they even own the land, let alone have you working on their behalf)

8. No POPLA as I didn't appeal in time.

9. Cannot supply documents and landowner contract as 'commercially sensitive' information.

10. PE believe we DO have a contract due to signage.

11. CPS vs Dorrington quoted.

12. T&Cs are 'fair' - the contract is fair and to BPA Regulations (I'm fairly certain its not - I just need to take a ruler to the carpark for my photo)

13. My request for information has been provided to me by an online forum(Please read the WHOLE thread, you'll note at no point did anyone give me a template as a RFI) - therefore will not provide it as it is costly BUT will provide to court when requested (So they CAN but WON'T because its not commercially justifiable...Think about that for a second)

14. No POPLA as PE do not consider it a suitable method for ADR 'at this stage'. I failed to engage with appeals process 'in time' - POPLA is binding on PE and not me, and done at PEs expense. PE upholds over 55% of appeals and 50% of motorists whose appeals are rejected by POPLA continue to dispute and court proceedings are still required to resolve (I'd especially love PP's view on this as he will have accurate statistics. I'll be photocopying the full letter to him regardless)

15. 28 days is a valid time limit for me to have appealed in. Quotes BPA on 28 days...For those unaware, I did appeal but it was outside the 28 days. PE are saying here AND in paragraphs 2 and 14 is that POPLA is not a proper form of ADR as i was outside 28 days. Not that it can't be done just that they don't want to as it will cost them.

16. The charge is not punitive and 'strong commercial justification' for charges of this nature - Would someone in the forum like to list the number of POPLA cases PE have lost due to Non-GPEOL?

17. LBCCC Is fully compliant in their eyes (It's not, and never will be)

18. ANPR is within regulations of BPA - See PP's latest blog regarding ANPR for 'I smell BS' on this point.

19. No evidence to suggest issued incorrectly - Their ANPR undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages don't you know.

20. PE will no longer reply to correspondence unless 'mitigating circumstances' or payment is produced. Well, Landowner denying they own the land could be pretty mitigating?!

21. Page - Google maps of signage placement (Can be seen in the planning permission, it's actually wrong anyway)

22. Copy of signage (Planning permission - I can't even read the small text on the printed copy so I doubt that will bind me to a contract)

23. Copy of signage (I've never seen this sign in that car park tbh but then again, the signs aren't within eyeline so no wonder I've never seen it)

Nothing from Planning department regarding me complaint ...Trading standards, damn I knew i was forgetting to complain to someone!!

4consumerrights

On line forums LOL - this must be the vendetta then! We know they've been reading this thread.

Why not send them your own personal costs for dealing with this to date?

Shall we remind Parking Eye exactly why they do not have the locus standi to take legal action in their own name - the very reason they refuse/wriggle out of supplying their contract in court.

Why not write back and state that you believe that Clauses 3, 22 and 23 in their standard terms of their contract amongst others prove this fact and that in fact courts have insisted in previous cases that the matter be dealt with at POPLA - well over 100 POPLA losses on not a GPEOL.