MET parking charge/gladstone solicitors

4consumerrights

Good letter from Daisy (as usual).

I would be inclined also send a copy of the letter to the SRA regarding the apparent confusion over Gladstones and their cleint and ask them to investigate why a solicitor is acting for a parking company but requesting settlement to another third party.:D

OM are also a property manangement company.

blackshoes

I work in a Hospital and have picked up a number of tickets, whilst trying to do my job- as parking is usually difficult. I too have received the same letter from Gladstones. Vinci are the parking company used there.
I have read everyone's comments and just wish to check if I can use the said letter template and forward to Gladstones directors and if there is anything else i should do. I really don't want a CCJ for tying to do my job!

pogofish

blackshoes wrote: »

I work in a Hospital and have picked up a number of tickets, whilst trying to do my job- as parking is usually difficult. I too have received the same letter from Gladstones. Vinci are the parking company used there.
I have read everyone's comments and just wish to check if I can use the said letter template and forward to Gladstones directors and if there is anything else i should do. I really don't want a CCJ for tying to do my job!

You need to read the Newbies Sticky:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

Then start your own thread for further help if needed.

Do not hijack someone else's thread, esp if a different company is involved!

Coupon-mad

blackshoes wrote: »

I work in a Hospital and have picked up a number of tickets, whilst trying to do my job- as parking is usually difficult. I too have received the same letter from Gladstones. Vinci are the parking company used there.
I have read everyone's comments and just wish to check if I can use the said letter template and forward to Gladstones directors and if there is anything else i should do. I really don't want a CCJ for tying to do my job!

1. Use the template reply.


2. there is no CCJ even if there's a small claim over it (if you lost you'd just pay the PCN, and if you won in small claims, you wouldn't pay a penny! NO CCJ!!).


3. Start your own thread when you get a response to the template.

mnkut

bump
UPDATE:

Hi all,

After posting Daisy's fantastic letter, I've had a response from MET (none from Gladstones as of yet)

Referring me to Roxburghe

How can I politely tell them I will not be contacting Roxburghe?
Given that they have failed to renew their business license etc

All help is much appreciated

Coupon-mad

How can I politely tell them I will not be contacting Roxburghe?
Given that they have failed to renew their business license etc.

Just like that really - except in stronger terms 'given that the OFT has removed their CCA licence'. Then remind MET that their charges have been found by POPLA not to represent any genuine pre-estimate of loss and (if this was at a railway car park?) byelaws apply, not POFA2012, so there can be no 'keeper liability' established so any further contact with you, the registered keeper, will be considered harassment.

steve-me5

4consumerrights wrote: »

Why are they asking you to contact Roxburghe - a toothless debt collector who incidently has just failed to renew its licence - after a long investigation.

Our company has just received the LBCCC purportedly from Gladstones and is about to respond with Driver details as the correspondence so far has been to company address, which is the registered keeper of the vehicle on which MET's claim is based.

Do you have any other references to show Roxburghe are acting without/outside of licence? Ive just checked oft.go.uk Consumer Credit Register database and it is showing as of today the following info re Roxburghe ie that their licence is 'current' but that there is possibly some sort of appeal process in progress since 21 Feb 2014



Licence Number:0533468
Licence Status:Current

Current Applicant / Licensee:

Business NameCompany Registration Number Roxburghe (UK) Limited3137269

Public Notices:

StageDateDocument LinkEvent NumberNotes Appeal to First Tier Tribunal21/02/2014
18 Determination to Refuse to Renew27/01/2014
20 Minded to Refuse to Renew11/04/2013
20 Minded To Revoke20/05/2011
18
With this information in mind is it at present worth pursuing the notion of Roxburghe issuing demands for payment outside their licence? Clearly there is the determination to refuse to renew but licence still showing as valid so does this mean it has not been revoked until the appeal process is exhausted and the determination is carried out and licence duly refused?

My previous (and only) letter from Roxburghe was dated Dec 2013, and the LBCCC template letter from 'Gladstones' (Roxburghe) is dated March2014.

Edit --- just noticed the later thread on here from 10 march which refers to 'business licence' is that a separate matter from the Consumer Credit Licence? apologies trying to research and office work at same time multi-tasking!

Further edit to answer my own question ....from credittoday.co.uk "The company revealed it has applied for and received interim permission from the Financial Conduct Authority, which is due to take over as regulator of the consumer credit market from 1 April."

On a separate note is anybody aware of any legal challenges regarding identification of registered keepers by the DVLA to private business such as MET? I'm sure there are probably some threads somewhere about this and surely I can't be the only one who just can't get my head around the idea that government agencies frequently hide behind the data protection issue to avoid disclosing information whilst at the same time sell such information to a company upon payment?

Thanks in advance

4consumerrights

The OFT did refuse to renew Roxburghe's licence - took them about a year to decide this fact.

Roxburghe were given a certain time to accept this decision or to appeal. It has subsequently been discovered that they decided to appeal this decision which has gone into the first tier tribunal appeal system.

As far as I know they are still allowed to operate whilst undergoing the full appeals process. However should you wish to make a complaint - by all means do..... the more the merrier!

steve-me5

4consumerrights wrote: »

The OFT did refuse to renew Roxburghe's licence - took them about a year to decide this fact.

Roxburghe were given a certain time to accept this decision or to appeal. It has subsequently been discovered that they decided to appeal this decision which has gone into the first tier tribunal appeal system.

As far as I know they are still allowed to operate whilst undergoing the full appeals process. However should you wish to make a complaint - by all means do..... the more the merrier!

did some more digging after that last post - apparently because of the regulator changeover on 31 March they have applied to the new regulator and have been granted an interim licence

4consumerrights

steve-me5 wrote: »

did some more digging after that last post - apparently because of the regulator changeover on 31 March they have applied to the new regulator and have been granted an interim licence

Yes that is right and has also been covered here on the forum before.

All debt collectors were required to apply for an interim licence as their current ones expire on the 31st March 2014. Applications commenced last September for this. The FCA from 1st April will deal with debt collectors who have a limited time period to apply for a full licence IIRC sometime in June/July (can't remember as the consultation paper was very long and read ages ago)