Miah - Is this a LOA?

bazster

They will not take you to court. UKCPS very rarely attempts court and when they do they don't use Miah or any other solicitors, they screw it up all on their own.

bod1467

Umkomaas wrote: »

Miah, Miah, pants on fire!

Ricky Miah?

Umkomaas

bod1467 wrote: »

Ricky Miah?

Not seen him around lately. :cool:

Coupon-mad

''Irrespective of the reasons for parking the Court of Appeal ruled on the 23rd of April 2015 that a charge for parking on private land is not extravagant or unconscionable.''

= part of your reply could be:

irrespective of your misleading letter, I am aware of the Court of Appeal ruling, upon which your clients cannot rely. The appellant was Barry Beavis and he is appealing the decision to the Supreme Court in July, which your letter fails to mention. A solicitor has a duty not to mislead not withhold material facts which could affect the decisions of either side in a dispute and you did not even name the case in question, hoping that a recipient of your letter would not know anything about the Supreme Court hearing.

I will now report you to the SRA because of your misleading words and because you are acting merely in the capacity of debt collector yet the letter is worded to mimic a LBCCC where you say 'This letter is being sent to you in accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct contained in the Civil Procedure Rules'. Clearly it is not in accordance with the new Practrice Direction (April 2015) at all.

If you or your client should proceed with a Court claim I will request a stay of the claim until the outcome of the Beavis case and will consider your pursuit of the matter unreasonable and vexatious, bearing in mind all parties are fully aware of the Supreme Court hearing pending.



NOW EDIT YOUR FIRST POST URGENTLY TO REMOVE ANY REFERENCE TO WHAT HAPPENED WHEN AND WHO PARKED THE CAR! UKCPS READ THIS FORUM AND WILL PRINT YOUR POSTS OFF LIKE SAD XXXXXXXS !

vincent709

I've received another letter from Miah after my reply.

They've stated that it's too late for appeal, and that they do no need to conform with the PD as their "client follows a set procedure with their trade assosiation" and as such they do not need to reply my appeal and they do not need to attempt to settle by ADR

They've also stated that their client has instructed them to issue court proceedings.

Any thoughts would be gratefully received.

atilla

vincent709 wrote: »

I've received another letter from Miah after my reply.

They've stated that it's too late for appeal, and that they do no need to conform with the PD as their "client follows a set procedure with their trade assosiation" and as such they do not need to reply my appeal and they do not need to attempt to settle by ADR

They've also stated that their client has instructed them to issue court proceedings.

Any thoughts would be gratefully received.

Did you do exactly has you were told to do by C-M a month ago?

The_Deep

So, have you written to the SRA? If not now is the time to do so. Now may also be a good time to raise the v.a.t. question.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5087925=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5033796=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5195437

Personally, I think that it is a bluff, I believe that Miah have so much dirty laundry that they would be reluctant to have it aired in court. What do others think?

vincent709

I did but I didn't report them to the SRA yet, although I will be after this letter, which again isn't compliant with the PD.

I don't know whether to raise the VAT issue as they have not stated what type of claim it is.

The_Deep

I don't know whether to raise the VAT issue as they have not stated what type of claim it is.

UKCPS will claim it is a contractural charge, on which v.a.t. is payable. If they have not accounted for vat it has to be damages for breach, no vat but GPEOL applies.

Herzlos

vincent709 wrote: »

I did but I didn't report them to the SRA yet, although I will be after this letter, which again isn't compliant with the PD.

I don't know whether to raise the VAT issue as they have not stated what type of claim it is.

You should do so, they've deliberately mislead you about the court of appeal case with Beavis (which is still undergoing appeal and can't be used, but they never told you that).

As for the VAT issue; it's either a charge as they will try and claim, which means VAT is due and they are dodging tax, or it's a claim for damages which means it must refect an actual loss. They should also have made this clear to you.