MIAH Solicitors Ignore or Respond?

jimi9mm

Hi All,


I've read the main threads and searched the forums and seen a lot of useful information on the MIAH solicitors parking letters they send on behalf of the UKCPS.


I have seen advise saying respond within the 14 days and read Coupon-mad posts and the great post from zzzLazyDaisy.


I have also seen responses on a legal websites that advise to ignore the letter as it is just another method of debt collection. justanswer (no link as I am a new user but google will take you to this thread for Miah solicitors on that website)

I think that ignoring this could lead to court but might not.


Addressing it could also have the same results but you have a chance of possibly getting this to be ended by using the advise from Coupon-mad and zzzLazyDaisy.


I have ignored everything so far.


The circumstances of the original ticket were that :-
I parked at the end of the day in a shopping retail park in a disabled bay.
Since it was the end of the day most of the car park was empty - my use of a disabled bay was not stopping anyone from parking.
I wasn't aware of the signs or any contractual obligations.
I parked close to the shop as they were due to close and I needed to return a baby car seat.
I had medical complaints at the time (and now) that also made me want to park as close as possible when lifting a heavy car seat.


The letter seems to adhere to the information required in the Practice Direction and is a Pre-Action letter prior to client instructions.


Would the current advice be to reply with details above or would you just ignore this letter as suggested on the lawyer's website?

ampersand

Welcome to mse, op.

You'll be rebuked for using a disabled bay FULLSTOP, if you don't possess a Blue Badge. NEVER DO IT, please.



Past that, ignore Miah until and unless you receive valid Court papers or LBCC.

The_Deep

The letter seems to adhere to the information required in the Practice Direction and is a Pre-Action letter prior to client instructions.

So, a begging letter then.

My advice would be to copy all correspondence from TMS to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, suggesting that such shenanigans in which Miah are involving themselves abringing the profession into disrepute. Are they demanding an eyewatering sum for your dastardly behaviour?

There is a letter from Gan which which puts them on the spot here (post 6)


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5321391


Also, this company appears to have a problem with v.a.t.


If this is contractual charge as they claim, it is a fee for parking and thus vatable.. Have they accounted for vat on their paper work? If not it becomes a breach of contract . No vat is payable but it can only be sufficient to compensate them for losses arising as from the breach, i.e., no staff uniforms, N.I. contributions, no electricity, business rates etc., a GPEOL in fact.

Ask them for a vat invoice. If they ignore, (which they probably will), it is a useful stick with which to beat them if it gets to court.

More reading here

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

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

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

If you suspect tax evasion go here

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

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5321391

jimi9mm

Thanks for the advise on ignoring Miah - has anyone to your knowledge been taken to court by them?


Regarding the disabled bay - yes absolutely would never want to prevent a valid user from having a space available.


I am under the belief that using a disabled bay on a retail park is not a criminal offence so this would be a contractual matter.


With parking in an invalid space while there was no prospect of a space being unavailable for any other motorist (disabled or otherwise) I fail to see what the impact and cost would be for this contractual charge in the first place and as stated in the earlier post my act was not preventing the use of disabled spaces.


The intention of parking spaces on the retail park is for the purposes of retail commerce and since this was the use of the parking and no disadvantage was experienced with the choice of my parking is there any strength in there claim if this did go to court?


Just edited this in - The Deep thanks I have read GAN's posts appreciate the links.

The_Deep

AS far as I am aware, TMS have never gone to court over a POPL matter. If they did, I would expect them to lose.


Do not beat yourself up about parking in a BB space, PPCs seem to treat them as cash cows.