Parking Eye "LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM" with new reference to CPR 17.1

castle347

salmosalaris wrote: »

You need to keep the communication going to stop them proceeding .
Did you ask them to consider an appeal , and include an appeal point , in your initial acknowledgment of the LBCCC ?
ie ask PE to consider your appeal and refer to POPLA if they reject it . This would stop them obfuscating about their "ability" to refer to POPLA

In my original letter of acknowledgement to them (see post #11) I asked for a POPLA appeal based upon the grounds of

1) Not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss
2) No valid contract with the landowner

There are more details in the post about these two points. I've not yet been able to trace the landowner.

So I think I've already done that right? So in this next letter, I just reiterate the point? I've not had chance to look at Daisy's guide again, I'll do that next and post a draft later.

salmosalaris

Make sure you reply as per advice.
You may wish to reiterate they are fully able to consider your appeal on the points that you mention and if they reject your representations they are obliged to issue with a POPLA code .
I cannot believe they want that letter mentioning requiring leave of the court for POPLA to consider the matter to actually end up in court .

Custard_Pie

salmosalaris wrote: »

Make sure you reply as per advice.
You may wish to reiterate they are fully able to consider your appeal on the points that you mention and if they reject your representations they are obliged to issue with a POPLA code .
I cannot believe they want that letter mentioning requiring leave of the court for POPLA to consider the matter to actually end up in court .

Playing Devil's Advocate, they are well within their rights to quote that PoPLA is no longer on the table as the time limit has expired. It costs them to go to PoPLA. We all know why though, as going on no GPEOL will see them lose at PoPLA. No right minded PPC will go voluntarily to PoPLA.

In PE mind, it's 50/50 if they go to Court and meanwhile the defendant may back down. There is also the case (no pun intended) of the internet watching closely to see if PE back down.

salmosalaris

Of course they are within their rights to say what they want regarding their own made up rules , but there are larger issues around ADR

Coupon-mad

The bottom line is that small claims is supposed to be an option of last resort. ParkingEye know that, and they also know that Judges have ordered POPLA to take place and that POPLA do not impose any deadline at all for a PPC to issue a code. Where an ADR is available and it's encouraged by the BPA Ltd (find the article about POPLA by the BPA, it was in a parking update magazine a few months ago, posted about on here!) then PE have no excuse to roll on to court.

So reply to Rachel ONCE by mail (1st class with proof of posting...for the love of God do not 'attempt to use signed-for' recorded or special delivery to this lot) and then revert to email and say the same thing again, keep plugging away. You can handle this by email so it costs you nothing, you can mark it FTAO Rachel Ledson although it won't be Rachel replying by email:

[EMAIL="enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk"]enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk[/EMAIL]

Just keep replying/repeating the above & Daisy's arguments, like a 'dripping tap'. Don't leave the ball in their court, this is your game of email keepie-uppie!

DW190

Coupon-mad wrote: »

[EMAIL="enfrcement@parkingeye.co.uk"]enfrcement@parkingeye.co.uk[/EMAIL]

Should that not be enforcement at parkingeye.co.uk

I would also quote that as the industries recommended ADR (POPLA) is still available. Should they not issue you with a POPLA code that you put them on Notice as to Costs. Then if it does end up in Court and the Judge orders POPLA you can claim your costs for attending Court.

castle347

OK thanks a lot everyone for your support and encouragement.

Here's my draft letter - please let me know what you think, whether I need to add more stuff.

Dear ****** *****

Re: ParkingEye-v-***** *****

Thank you for your letter dated ***** 2014.

You state in your letter (this is a direct quotation):

“We are confident that the Letter Before Action issued to you on **** 2014 is compliant with the requirements of Annex A, Paragraph 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct...”

However, I am still not satisfied that your Letter Before Action is in fact compliant.

Annex A, Paragraph 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, accessed 10th June 2014 states (this is a direct quotation):

“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...”

In reference to 2.1 (5), and as stated already in my previous letter to you, I do not accept that your letter before claim explains to me how the amount of £85.00 has been calculated. Please show me how this sum has been calculated in your next letter. Until you do this, I will be unable to send you a formal response.

Also, in reference to 2.2 (1), you must list the essential documents on which you intend to rely. You have not done this, so it is therefore not possible for me to formally respond.

With regard to ADR, you state in your letter of ***** 2014 (direct quotation):

“Unfortunately, POPLA would not be a suitable method for alternate dispute resolution at this stage.”

I do not accept that it is not possible to use POPLA as ADR at this stage. POPLA do not impose any deadline at all as to when their services can be used, so they are in fact the best possible form of ADR. I am inviting you to use POPLA as ADR and would like you to accept this method. If you refuse to consider POPLA as a form of ADR, I would like you to send me some evidence which supports your claim that there is a 28 day time limit for using POPLA. Until you do this, I will unfortunately be unable to give you a formal response to your letter before claim.

Yours faithfully

**** *****

thanks in advance
castle347

salmosalaris

I would make sure you invite them to consider your appeal that the charge does not represent a gpeol and that they should either cancel the ticket or provide a POPLA code to enable the ADR process

castle347

OK thanks I think I have stated this but perhaps I need to be more explicit and clear. I can add a sentence to that effect at the beginning.

Coupon-mad

DW190 wrote: »

Should that not be enforcement at parkingeye.co.uk

I would also quote that as the industries recommended ADR (POPLA) is still available. Should they not issue you with a POPLA code that you put them on Notice as to Costs. Then if it does end up in Court and the Judge orders POPLA you can claim your costs for attending Court.

Add the bit above!