Letter Before Claim from Premier Solicitors / Total Parking Solutions

d_las

Long-time lurker, first post.

I'm helping my wife with a letter before claim received from Total Parking Solutions / Premier Solicitors. It is regarding a 10 minute stay in a disabled bay in desperate circumstances (occupying one of very many empty disabled bays at some shops) whilst picking our daughter up from school. Its not a habit she/we have and indeed is the only time it has ever happened (hand on heart!). We ignored the usual demanding letters etc.

The solicitors' original LBC (10/11/14) naturally didn't meet the Practice Direction (have read the long thread about this process) so we wrote back (12/11/14), pointed this out and asked for compliant LBC.

Unlike other's experience perhaps they wrote a personalised reply to that letter (14/11/14) 1) asking for clarification why we dispute the ticket and 2) 'firmly denying' that their letter is non-compliant with the PD.

Currently I'm penning a reply saying 1) we are not aware of any need to disclose the nature of our dispute with the ticket at this time and 2) their LBC most assuredly is non-compliant and if they reread the PD they would come to the same conclusion and 3) that we still need one that is.

I'm a little unclear whether what we have given them so far constitutes a written acknowledgement for the purposes of para 3.1 and when the clock starts ticking re the acknowledgement / response - their original LBC or some theoretical future LBC that is compliant?

I'm putting this up partly to share our experience with others dealing with the same company but also for any advice about whether we are going about things the right way!

Dan

Coupon-mad

Make sure the reply comes from the keeper (not 'we/our') and also does not imply who was driving. You could add that the keeper did not respond to the letter from TPS, because it failed to meet the conditions for keeper liability in Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. As such, the keeper is not liable in law and will show this in their defence should TPS decide to pursue the matter.

d_las

The letter/s is/are written in the first person (my wife).

We haven't acknowledged who was driving in any letters but I'm not sure how far we could ever push that one - the parking attendant was hanging around by the car when my wife returned and they spoke briefly (and amicably I note!). The attendant took a photo of the car in the bay in view of my wife, but we don't think my wife was visible to the camera.

Coupon-mad

Your wife must certainly answer as keeper only, as that forces them to have to prove that the POFA 2012 was complied with (and it won't have been because I haven't seen a fully-compliant NTK yet, from any PPC, in my view). It's not 'pushing it' to choose to exercise her right to respond as keeper. An attendant who saw a lady does not know the lady's name, does not know and cannot assume she was the keeper.

Also TPS are not litigious so it would be astonishing if they actually tried a small claim. It's all threats and if they ever tried one it would be very defendable. Keep all letters safe in a file, everything, just in case, for 6 years because any alleged 'debt' can be pursued for that amount of time in the UK.

bazster

This is the third time in a few days I've seen a case where someone has replied to a debt collectors' letter purporting to be from solicitors and has elicited a personal response from the solicitors.

If more people did this then this particular aspect of the racket would soon be stopped. The debt collectors are paying the solicitors a very small fee for using their letterhead (£5 per letter tops, if that) and yet if challenged the solicitors must deal with it since they are under strict obligations regarding professional conduct. Whether the solicitors are covering the cost of dealing with it or the debt collectors are, either way the £5 letter suddenly got very expensive!

hoohoo

Personally I think it reasonable for them to ask why you are disputing the ticket. The whole point of the pre action protocol is to avoid court if at all possible.if court is inevitable, then it is to both sides advantage to know the areas in dispute and the areas agreed (if any).

If you are asking them to obey pre action protocol, you should do the same.

I would contrast this with the behaviour of ParkingEye, who refuse to give any information and proceed headlong to court. If two or three letters to the solicitors sort this out you will be better off. If not, at least you will know your defence points.

bazster

Well possibly, but it rather depends on what the letter from the "solicitors" actually said. Very often these letters don't even state the basis for the claim (contractual charge, breach or trespass?) and if you are not even given this information how can you state why you dispute the charge? The letter before claim is supposed to provide all the information necessary to understand and respond to the claim. Whether it did in this case I do not know, but it's a fair guess that it didn't.

hoohoo

bazster wrote: »

Well possibly, but it rather depends on what the letter from the "solicitors" actually said. Very often these letters don't even state the basis for the claim (contractual charge, breach or trespass?) and if you are not even given this information how can you state why you dispute the charge? The letter before claim is supposed to provide all the information necessary to understand and respond to the claim. Whether it did in this case I do not know, but it's a fair guess that it didn't.

Fair point, but in that case I would be writing exactly that back. Eg your letter before claim is deficient because it does not stare if the basis of the claim is trespass, breach...etc

d_las

I was thinking there was no need to go giving the game away in terms of what the defence was until it was necessary to do so - it can't imagine them getting into a dialogue and then backing down!

Similarly with regards to the LBC - they can read the Practice Direction can't they? Why should I spell out why its deficient until it is necessary to do so? I'm not saying I'm right about those things, just that it was what I was thinking.

The good news on this though is that an email to the land owner has worked. They are a charitable trust and we offered a donation in lieu of the fine - they suggested we get an annual membership (£35), which has amongst its benefits free parking on site (...), as well as a few other things that we will make use of, so we're happy with that.

Umkomaas

I'd hold on in applying for that annual membership until you have written confirmation of the cancellation of the charge from the PPC.

Have you had anything in writing from the Trust? If not I'd drop them an email to thank them for their timely intervention and ask them to confirm your understanding that they have cancelled the charge with their agents (the PPC). Tell them that you are 'in the process of acquiring an annual membership', which you are happy to take out as a result of their positive help with your problem.

You do need something in writing, preferably from both, but as a minimum from the landowner who is the Principal to the contract. Make sure you keep any confirmation for at least six years - the amount of time available for a small claim to be filed for any alleged 'debt'.

HTH

bazster

Erm, excuse me, but with this "annual membership" how does the PPC know you are entitled to free parking? If it's by displaying a permit or somesuch then, when it falls on the floor or you display it at 5 degrees beyond their approved angle or some such nonsense, will they cancel it on production of proof of membership? I would certainly want an answer to that before I handed over my £35.