PCN Oct 2014, business closed (Sunday)

norfolk_lass

I really need some help / guidance.

We received a PCN in October 2014 for a parking violation on a Sunday outside of a business which was closed. The signs were on the walls of the business and not the entrance to the parking area which was actually just a wide part of the footpath in front of the shop. We ignored their repeated threats until January 2015, at which time we wrote a letter asking for a response to 3 points, they responded but with a standard letter and further intimidation by telling us we shouldn't use internet template letters!!!

The last we heard from Debt Recovery Plus was on the 7th April 2015.

Today we have received a letter purportedly from Gladstones solicitors telling us "...our client may now instruct us to take legal action..."

Help - what to do next? I'm planning on writing to the land owner (if I can find that out) but really I just want a few standard templates (yes the things they tell me not to use) to help me along.

I have tried to read the guide but I am getting lost in the jargon and detail and can't find my way through it

I really don't believe they have any kind of valid claim (it was a Sunday and the shop was CLOSED!) and the intimidation tactics are really p***ing me off.

Any help much appreciated.
Thxs

Coupon-mad

Does the Gladstones letter say this is a 'Letter before Claim' or similar? Or are they just asking for the money, rather like DRPlus did?

Was this Norfolk Parking Enforcement (a joke of a firm who've now changed their name!).

Redx

use advanced edit to alter the thread title in post #1, to change the date

if its private land, the landowner and possibly the PPC have the right to stop you parking there, closed or not, sunday or not, you dont park on private land without the owners permission

who is the actual PPC that issued the original PCN ?

norfolk_lass

The gladstones letter is just another request for money with the sentence "...our client may now instruct us to take legal action..."

And yes it was NPE

(thanks for the advanced edit prompt - now corrected)

Quentin

norfolk_lass wrote: »

The gladstones letter is just another request for money with the sentence "...our client may now instruct us to take legal action..."

And yes it was NPE

(thanks for the advanced edit prompt - now corrected)

So your OP needs more editing - they haven't told you they have been instructed to "pursue a CCC"


Ignore it.

Coupon-mad

So Gladstones are acting as debt collectors in old 'NPE' PCNs from 2014. NPE were in the BPA then and their NTKs were incapable of keeper liability. Also their practices are notorious, not a very bright bunch:

http://www.norwichgreenparty.org/assets/files/localparties/norwich/private-parking.pdf

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/motorists_stung_for_using_wrong_entrance_to_norwich_car_park_but_complaints_spark_u_turn_1_3911665

Was this Dereham Road Norwich? That's a cash-cow for 'NPE' (whichever one).

Here's an example of a Gladstones letter asking for payment to 'Debt Recovery Plus' but you haven't said whether that's all yours is (important!):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t100205.html

You could consider ignoring Gladstones (at this stage) as they appear to be acting as a debt collector because that's not a Letter before Claim. So you can consider them debt collectors like DRPlus were, trying to sweep up some old NPE cases & turn them into money for their new member. NPE have changed their name to National Parking Enforcement Ltd which makes them a different firm altogether, now they are with the IPC instead of the BPA.

If you prefer to respond (and a robust response is an option which looks very reasonable, if later on a small claim is attempted...which is still unlikely) you could say:


Dear Sirs,

Your ref and alleged 'PCN' number: xxxxxxxxxx

I have received your letter but will not be entering into protracted correspondence. This is not a Letter before Claim, compliant with the Practice Direction and pre-action protocols and it should never be for a member of the public to point such failings out to a firm of solicitors.

Cease and desist with letters such as the one sent to me. I will consider a further letter like this as indicative of a course of harassment. It is an aggressive but baseless demand which provides no clear information whatsoever, fails to to meet debt collection guidelines and is in fact, so woefully inadequate, late and misleading that it would meet the definition of 'unfair' in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

There is no debt outstanding to a firm known as 'NPE' and you have failed to clearly identify the company, bearing in mind the firm which was a BPA member in 2014/15 are not the same firm who recently became IPC members, as you will be fully aware. If you do not respond with full information about this alleged debt and the full particulars of the firm which is paying you to chase 'debts' (which does not appear to be the previous BPA 'AOS' member 'Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd' and cannot have been the IPC member 'National Parking Enforcement Ltd') I will report Gladstones to the SRA.

If the company which allegedly issued a 'parking charge' to a vehicle for which I was listed as the keeper several years ago, actually believe they have a cause of action then their Letter Before Claim must provide all of the information required to enable me to make an informed response. It is not acceptable to refer to some previous documents that I may or may not have received in 2014 from a firm which is neither a BPA nor an IPC AOS member. In the interests of open and fair dealing, the firm must also clearly identify themselves, not merely using the ambiguous acronym 'NPE', for obvious reasons.

I am therefore requesting that you provide a Letter Before Claim and a response to the above, or confirm that the matter will not be pursued by the company which claimed to have issued a 'PCN' in their name two years ago. I will not waste my time telephoning your office and will not be responding to you further if you persist with harassing me with demands that are neither one thing nor another.

Yours Faithfully

Ralph-y

you will not get better advice any where that the above .......

take it and good luck

Ralph:cool: