Have been dealing with UKCPS, now got a letter from a solicitor. Advice?

ManxRed

There's a couple of basic grammatical errors in that letter.

I doubt very much that it was written by a solicitor.

fairleee

Herzlos wrote: »

It says in their that [paraphrasing] "our client attempted to mitigate costs by placing a notice to driver on the car", so did this go directly from UKPCS to Miah and not via another debt collector like ZZPS or DRP?

I received the ticket in February, have had about 5 letters or so from UKCPS (all templates) since then, before suddenly receiving one of the template letters that Miah have been spamming out everywhere a couple of weeks ago. No contact from any other debt collector.

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm also not sure how writing a dodgy invoice for an invalid infraction can be regarded as mitigating loss. Free car park?

The car park is a permit car park, which I didn't know at the time. Basically we were driving through the town on our way from visiting a friend, when our (then three year old) son started being sick in the back seat. I pulled over first chance I could so we could get him out and clean him up. Didn't even notice the signs at the time, nor did I notice the ticket - they placed it right over my tax disc holder so I didn't see it when we got back in the car!

Herzlos wrote: »

I also don't understand how "Our client instructed us to take legal action to recover" fits in with the correspondance email address of "debtrecovery@themiahsolicitors.co.uk" and the letter is signed off "Debt Recovery Team". That makes it sound like it's a debt recovery action and not a solicitors action? Have you asked them to clarify the role in which they are acting?

I haven't, which is worth doing so. If I recall correctly, someone else post a letter from Miah a little while ago, where they did address this - from what I remember it basically said, "we are trying to collect this debt, but we aren't debt collectors". That's definitely something worth following up on, given that if they are acting as debt collectors, then the fee they are trying to charge is completely invalid as per the SRA's code of conduct.

Herzlos wrote: »

I'd be inclined to ask them to clarify:
1. Who is their client
2. In what role are they acting
3. If this is a Letter Before Action
4. If UKCPS are claiming the charge is a breach or a contractual term.
5. Who actually wrote the letter (you want a named solicitor).

I think the response here might be to send them a list of questions that need answering. There's likely to be quite a few!

fairleee

I've also noticed something else I'd really like some advice on, from someone with legal knowledge. They say in their letter that my failure to respond to the PCN or any subsequent letters (a lie, as I have all my responses documented and have sent them either proof of postage or recorded delivery) is "actually a failure to mitigate costs". Isn't this a complete misunderstanding of how mitigation of costs works? From my understanding, the party who (claims to have) suffered damages in a case has to mitigate their costs. The onus is on the defendant to show that the plaintiff has failed to mitigate costs. How can I have failed to mitigate costs when I'm the defendant?!

Would really appreciate some clarification here!

ManxRed

My understanding is that you are correct.

Another reason why I don't think that letter was written by a solicitor.

I'd be sending it to the SRA with a complaint.

Herzlos

I think you're correct (I'm not legally trained). You presumably accused them of failing to mitigate costs and they retorted with "Well, if you paid the first notice, you'd have saved money". It's just petty and irrelevant and another indication that it hasn't been written by a solicitor.

My advice earlier was a bit off; I assumed like the rest of the "solicitor" cases that the client was the debt collector (DRP, PCS, ZZPS, etc) in which case they can't instigate proceedings because their client wasn't the actual claimant. So I guess they could here, but everything points to them (a) acting as a debt collector and (b) letting UKCPS use their letterhead to send mail.

Curiously, the phone number in the letter doesn't match the contact us page on their website - 0113 3503 007 - makes you wonder who'll answer it - MIAH or UKCPS?

enfield_freddy

The Miah Solicitors
First Floor
325/327 Roundhay Road
Leeds
LS8 4HT
DX 17936 Leeds Roundhay Tel: 0113 3503 007
Fax: 0113 3505 004


https://www.facebook.com/miahsolicitors


is that the same as there letter?


if a different number , please list it

The_Deep

I would c0ntinue the ping pong, it cost them money, and it builds up a damning paper trail if it did get to court. Sooner or later they are going to do or say something that really gets up the SRA's nose.


Keep banging on about the v.a.t., that is the PPC's Achilles heal, and why a solicitor things it is ok to try to con you out of a large sum of money.

fairleee

Sent off my response today to both UKCPS and Miah. In each case I'm simply continuing with the ping pong, as The Deep puts it, but I did get a solicitor friend to glance over my letter to the solicitors. She rewrote the section on the fees to beef it up a bit so it looks like this:

On the issue of your client’s claim for its legal costs, this is of course a small claim, thus your client would not be entitled to recover its legal costs in any event. Your client’s claim for £150 in legal fees in respect of an alleged debt of £100 is highly disproportionate and I believe the court would find against you on this basis, bearing in mind parties’ continued duties to mitigate costs and only incur those that are proportionate. In addition I am a litigant in person, thus arguably there is no need for your client to go to the expense of engaging solicitors to act for it.

I further note that, despite my reasonable request, you have failed to justify what work you have done for this claim, or justify what makes this claim so extraordinary as to warrant a fee higher than the claim itself. Once again I ask you to explain yourself. Parties are under a duty to act with transparency and I consider the court will take a very dim view of your evasive behavior in this regard.

I imagine I'll be hearing from them again in a week or so; be interesting to see where they go from here!