Parking fine letter from solicitors.

bod1467

Please edit your post above to remove your own personal details!

Coupon-mad

The old sign looks more like this sort of thing PCN(NW) used to use:

http://i62.tinypic.com/2zqhb2s.jpg

So in fact I would change your last 2 paragraphs to the following, seeing as you can't have one saying 'finally' then one saying 'lastly'!:


Please also note that should your firm issue court proceedings on behalf of your client, without first complying with all steps set out in the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct, I shall make an immediate complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the Principles contained in the SRA Handbook version 8, published on 1st October 2013.

Finally, I also believe that PCN(NW) do not have a contract with the actual landowner at all, I believe they merely have a site agreement at best, with another non-landowning agent such as Parking Ticketing Ltd. PCN(NW) have no legal standing to bring any claim. I have evidence of the parking sign on site at the time of this parking event which of course was not the version that new IPC members like PCN(NW) are now installing on your personal instruction. It was a black/white and red old sign from Parking Ticketing Ltd, indicating that PCN(NW) were merely carrying out the 'ticketing' there. The sign on that date did not create any contractual agreement; I have pictures of the sign which is also shown on the PCN notice online. This is known to be a business model which is not permitted for AOS members under the IPC Code of Practice and I am aware that Mr Hurley has recently informed PCN(NW) that their old business model is unacceptable to the IPC. I find it astonishing that Gladstones can issue letters threatening Court when PCN(NW) are not yet compliant with the IPC Code of Practice and you are fully aware that old cases such as this are unenforceable.

If the case proceeds to court I will defend robustly on the above basis. In view of the above, I strongly suggest you advise your client to cancel the 'charge' forthwith and cease this baseless, unjustified harassment.

1wez

Thank you coupon-mad will get it typed up again also who shall I send copies of this letter?
And what are the possible outcomes of this?
Thanks again great help.��

Coupon-mad

Send it to Gladstones only.

Possible outcomes are they either cancel it, they go quiet or they try a small claim anyway - if this last possibility happens we can help you with a robust defence and PCN(NW) always throw the towel in before the hearing.

1wez

I refer to your letter of 13 MAY 2014

Please note, this is an open letter and I reserve the right to produce it to the court at the appropriate time, should the need arise.

Firstly, I do not accept liability for the above parking charge and I have no intention of paying the money demanded by your client. Specifically, I do not accept that the charge demanded is in any way shape or form a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Further, I do not believe that your client has legal standing to pursue an action against me in its own name, since any loss (which is denied) would be the landholder's in any event. I am sure that you will have advised your client as to the recent cases in which parking companies have had similar claims dismissed owing to having no locus to bring a claim. For the above reasons, any court proceedings in connection with this matter will be vigorously defended.

Second, should it be your client's intention to start court proceedings, you must first provide a Letter Before Claim which complies with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct. Your letter clearly does not meet those requirements.

In particularly your attention is drawn to the Practice Direction requirement to utilise an appropriate form of ADR before starting court proceedings. In the circumstances I invite your client to refer this dispute to the Parking On Private Land appeals service ("POPLA"), which is the appropriate form of ADR set up by the parking industry for this precise situation.

Please note: Notwithstanding the fact that any decision of POPLA is legally binding on the parking company, and not the motorist, in the spirit of exploring an amicable resolution of this dispute, I am willing to give an undertaking to be bound by the decision of POPLA, thus ensuring that this case will not proceed to court.

A referral to POPLA will avoid your client incurring the fees and expenses set out in your letter, and perhaps more importantly will reduce the burden on the court (which, as you will be aware, is the reason for this Direction). Please do not seek to rely on any deadlines imposed by your client as POPLA has confirmed that it does not impose any time limit on an appeal to POPLA, and all that is required is for your client to issue a POPLA code.

I would also remind you that a failure and/or refusal by your client to agree to my offer of both parties abiding by a POPLA decision would be clear evidence of your client's failure to mitigate its alleged loss.

Should your client reject my offer to refer this dispute to ADR and instead chooses to instruct you to issue court proceedings, I shall invite the court to stay the case and make an order referring the case to POPLA. Further I shall strenuously resist any application for costs that your client may wish to make, owing to its failure to mitigate, and shall instead make an application for my own wasted costs according to the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Practice Direction and CPR 27.14.

In the meantime, and in the absence of a compliant Letter Before Claim, you should place a note on your file to the effect that this charge is disputed and your firm is required to cease and desist all further contact with me. For the avoidance of doubt, the same applies to the debt collection agency, referred to in your letter.

Please also note that should your firm issue court proceedings on behalf of your client, without first complying with all steps set out in the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct, I shall make an immediate complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the Principles contained in the SRA Handbook version 8, published on 1st October 2013.

Finally, I also believe that PCN (NW) do not have a contract with the actual landowner at all, I believe they merely have a site agreement at best, with another non-landowing agent such as Parking Ticketing Ltd. PCN(NW) have no legal standing to bring any claim. I have evidence of the parking sign on the site at the time of this parking event which of course was not the version that new IPC members like PCN(NW) are now installing on your personal instruction. It was black/white and red old sign from Parking Ticketing Ltd, indicating that PCN(NW) were merely carrying out the 'ticketing' there. The sign on the date did not create any contractual agreement; I have pictures of the sign which is also shown on the PCN notice online. This is known to be a business model which is not permitted for AOS members under the IPC Code of Practice and I am aware that Mr Hurley has recently informed PCN(NW) that their old business model is unacceptable to the IPC. I find it astonishing that Gladstones can issue letters threatening Court wehn PCN(NW) are not yet compliant with the IPC Code of Practice and you are fully aware the old case such as this are unenforceable.


If the case proceeds to court i will defend robustly on the above basis. In the view of the above, I strongly suggest you advise your client to cancel the 'charge' forthwith and cease this baseless, unjustified harassment.


Yours faithfully

Wesley alexander

hows this coupon?
would you suggest email or send recorded via post

Coupon-mad

''In particularly your attention...'' = that paragraph should be =


In particular, your attention is drawn to the Practice Direction requirement to utilise an appropriate form of ADR before starting court proceedings. In the circumstances I invite your client to refer this dispute to independent appeal by providing a code for the IAS or for POPLA. The latter was the applicable ADR for PCN(NW) to offer if they had ever sent a Notice to Keeper in this matter (which they did not) and of course, you will be fully aware that the IAS is the ADR now applicable to this Operator but only for new PCNs. A small claim must be a last resort so I formally request a code for POPLA, since that was the correct ADR at the time and there is no time limit on issuing a POPLA code. Take note that your clients have no case - the complete lack of a Notice to Keeper being served means they have not only denied me a right to appeal, but they have failed to establish keeper liability under POFA2012.


and towards the end there are 2 typos and a gap after this paragraph that needs a line space removed:


I find it astonishing that Gladstones can issue letters threatening Court wehn PCN(NW) are not yet compliant with the IPC Code of Practice and you are fully aware the old case such as this are unenforceable, especially without any Notice to Keeper having been served. Your letter was the first I knew about this matter which is wholly unacceptable and non-compliant with either the IPC or the BPA Code of Practice.




Finally - please edit your first post above where you talk about who was driving - DON'T put such info on a public forum.

1wez

Paragraph beginning should your client reject ,

Is the a typo where it says I shall invite the court to stay the case? Is stay the correct word?

Thank you

bod1467

Yes it is.

And I'll ignore the grammatical typo in your post.

Coupon-mad

Why not Google 'stay a claim' and you'd see what it means as well?