P.D. v BPA Pre-action procedure?

sunny1223

Hi All,
After reading all the sticky's on Daisy's thread, I acknowledged a non-compliant LBC from the P.P.C.
I have now received a reply from them, which states that the LBA criteria in the PD (letter of claim) is not applicable in this matter. They have referred me to justice.gov.uk section 7.3 and advise that as members of BPA, they follow the formal pre-action procedure set out in their code of practice instead.
Question is - is this correct or should I reply back and ask them again specifically for a PD compliant letter containing all the relevant information - the letter they have sent doesn't contain any specifics about their intended case etc.
Also, do I have 14 days from when they sent this reply to me to send any sort of response back?
thanks in advance.

bod1467

BPA Ltd (clue) guidelines/CoP do not superseded The Law.

Here in Annex A (that section 7.3 references). Does their LBA conform to this?

Guidance on pre-action procedure where no pre-action protocol or other formal pre-action procedure applies
1. General
1.1 This Annex sets out detailed guidance on a pre-action procedure that is likely to satisfy the court in most circumstances where no pre-action protocol or other formal pre-action procedure applies. It is intended as a guide for parties, particularly those without legal representation, in straightforward claims that are likely to be disputed. It is not intended to apply to debt claims where it is not disputed that the money is owed and where the claimant follows a statutory or other formal pre-action procedure.

2. Claimant’s letter before claim
2.1 The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter. This should enable the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information. The letter should include –
(1) the claimant’s full name and address;
(2) the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable);
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
(4) what the claimant wants from the defendant; and
(5) if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.
2.2 The letter should also –
(1) list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely;
(2) set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this;
(3) state the date by which the claimant considers it reasonable for a full response to be provided by the defendant; and
(4) identify and ask for copies of any relevant documents not in the claimant's possession and which the claimant wishes to see.
2.3 Unless the defendant is known to be legally represented the letter should –
(1) 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; and
(2) inform the defendant that ignoring the letter before claim may lead to the claimant starting proceedings and may increase the defendant's liability for costs.

da_rule

PD 7.3 makes no reference to using a code of practice set up by a trade body. It is there purely to incorporate Annex A (as shown above) in cases (such as this) where there is no specific pre-action protocol.

I would reply as soon as you can, it is best to be proactive.

sunny1223

thanks both, LBA does not conform so I will reply on this basis

da_rule

Are these letters signed by a solicitor?

sunny1223

a litigation assistant

ampersand

Is it a pp siggie for a real solicitor, or above/under lit.!!!. name?

Check here:
http://www.sra.org.uk/faqs/contact-centre/public/02-checking-a-solicitors-records/can-i-find-out-whether-a-firm-or-person-is-regulated-by-the-sra.page

sunny1223

the letter is from a PPC and sent and signed by a 'litigation assistant'. I have searched on the link above and their name is not recognised?

HO87

Might it be a certain PPC who have a sloicitor on their staff? If so, then that solicitor has a supervisory responsibility and is likely to be liable if the so-called litigation assistance has fouled up.

That said, I have yet to see a single so-called LBA produced by a PPC that conforms to the PD. Some I have read were truly atrocious and in one case seemingly penned and signed by a solicitor themselves. That may well have been why when the prompt response to their LBA, pointing out its many deficiencies, went in they withdrew the matter immediately and it hasn't reappeared yet.

ampersand

That is because he or she is not a qualified solicitor.
Look back to bod#2 and your reply#4, and carry on with your own strong rebuttal.

Remember that the BPA is a trade body funded by the scumpanies who lost their easy pickings when clamping was outlawed. POPLA was their lollipop.

It's all here:
*http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/how-much-does-popla-cost.html
#
Apologies HO, cross-posted.
op - no fun *reading until your letter's done. Show us first.

sunny1223

is it worth me sending you a copy of the letter first or shall I just send based on the above info? thanks for all your help