UKPC/Small Claims Solicitor - Letter Before Claim - £1000 at stake

bazster

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

That's the crux of the matter. The op believes there cannot be any costs, as they have a legal right to use the land for free. So they cannot admit to any costs, without also admitting that costs have been incurred by use of the land, hence the easement is denied.

You don't understand what "WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO THE QUESTION OF COSTS" actually means do you?

nobbysn*ts

bazster wrote: »

When leaseholders buy the freehold to their flats they are buying the land, not specifically their flats.

Exactly what land would be included would obviously vary from site to site.

Even so, the surrounding land would probably be of little value to the freeholder if he no longer owned the buildings, so he'd probably sell it anyway.

They don't 'buy' the common areas, normally they buy the right to use them, and the obligation to maintain them. They remain property of the community, and then a management team need to be appointed to maintain them. Or a similar arrangement split between all parties. However, that's not the case here. It's surrounding land, no idea if it's a small piece of scrubland, or enough to develop in the future as an entire new block of flats. Anyway, why buy it, that would be a further cost, and if they have an easement they can park for free.

bazster

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

They don't 'buy' the common areas, normally they buy the right to use them

Utter nonsense. A freehold is over land. If they buy the freehold then they own the land and the entire building situated thereon, common areas and all.

You really are dishing out some terrible misinformation about things you clearly don't understand.

request

Thanks everyone for your input, very much appreciated. I need to respond by Monday at the latest. Do I need to send it recorded delivery?

In answer to people’s questions:

· There are separate Letters Before Claim addressed to 2 family members, both of whom are registered keeper of 1 car each.
· I have also posted on pepipoo but finding that I am getting more/better responses on MSE!
· The flats were built in the early 1960s, and everyone's lease says no parking allowed
· Re the easement, we have not had formal legal advice on this (no one in the block really wanted to pay for it, most of the residents don’t drive/park anyway), but I have spoken to a solicitor and a barrister and getting conflicting opinions – it does not seem to be straightforward. In my layman’s opinion it is not worth relying on this as our only argument as it might not stand up before a judge – but it could be used to try to frighten whoever is trying to get our money
· We are planning to move out in the near future and therefore not interested in buying the freehold, and don't really care if this whole business has implications for future legal arguments re the easement
· Re the planning permission for lockable posts – I agree that it does not make a difference to the easement. But it does mean that outsiders are not allowed to park there (stated explicitly in the planning permission), hence the damage we have caused to the freeholders is nil
· Coupon-mad – a barrister friend tells me that LPC Law is a known firm, so I should treat this Small Claims Solicitors letter as a solicitor’s letter. So more scary than Debt Recovery Plus… (He also tells me he suspects they might be acting on commission)


Currently I am thinking of:


· First writing just to challenge the validity of the LBC as per Lazy Daisy
· If they reply with a valid LBC, to then reply stating the reasons that we object to their claim:
(1) not caused them any damage
(2) easement
and also asking them:
(3) to provide evidence that we were the drivers at the time of the offence, as others are insured to drive the cars
(4) to tell us if they are acting on a for-commission basis
(5) to provide us with a copy of the arrangements between them and UPKC and Debt Recovery Plus the freeholders
· I am thinking of putting in a Without Prejudice offer of the daily amount they wanted to charge us for parking, times how many claims + a small amount for admin charges, probably £10 in all. (I would be prepared to pay more to avoid all the hassle.)

Coupon-mad

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Offering them an amount for the parking effectively means you are accepting that they do have a right.

Nope, not the way that is written with the heading on it. That version is based around one LazyDaisy wrote a while back and is perfectly safe to send, doesn't admit anything and can't be used in the hearing by the claimant.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad – a barrister friend tells me that LPC Law is a known firm,

Yes we know them well - their lawyers act for ParkingEye but NOT in the capacity of this part of the operation, this call centre rejoicing in the name of 'small claims solicitors'. We've never seen a case that had that letter, go to 'court papers' AFAIK. It's a debt collector just like 'Graham White Solicitors' used to be, albeit again with a real solicitor's name 'behind it'. They are debt collectors.

so I should treat this Small Claims Solicitors letter as a solicitor’s letter.

Yes that's why I've said do the formal response shown by Daisy.

BTW £10 altogether will never be accepted. And don't write the offer within the response letter (keep them on separate sheets, it is important).

request

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes we know them well - their lawyers act for ParkingEye but NOT in the capacity of this part of the operation, this call centre rejoicing in the name of 'small claims solicitors'. We've never seen a case that had that letter, go to 'court papers' AFAIK. It's a debt collector just like 'Graham White Solicitors' used to be, albeit again with a real solicitor's name 'behind it'. They are debt collectors.

Thanks. Can you explain a bit more? How can they be debt collectors if they are solicitors? Are you saying they are just using the name "solicitor" without being solicitors? If so how can they say they are part of LPC law?

And if they are just debt collectors, why not just ignore this LBC (as we have ignored all other communication) rather than respond?

Coupon-mad

They are part of LPC law but that letter doesn't get seen/written/signed by any solicitor, it's generated by computer and handled by a clerk in a call centre which just sends out letters. Solicitors OFTEN issue debt collector letters, for some it's their bread and butter, look:

http://www.thomashiggins.com/?utm_expid=49143215-0.qt5nnMXgRyuqurAe5p9awQ.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dsolicitor%2520debt%2520collection%2520letter%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCcQFjAB%2!!!!%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.thomashiggins.com%252F%26ei%3DSsu_U5ydLur50gXVp4GACw%26usg%3DAFQjCNESVWb7WrFS8g_d-4y8-mHAOiSoig%26bvm%3Dbv.70810081%2Cd.d2k

request

Has anyone got more thoughts on my suggested plan of action (post #35)? Thanks

nobbysn*ts

bazster wrote: »

Utter nonsense. A freehold is over land. If they buy the freehold then they own the land and the entire building situated thereon, common areas and all.

You really are dishing out some terrible misinformation about things you clearly don't understand.

Sorry mate, no single leaeholder will own the common land. It will set up for all of them. Stick to parking advice?