Dodgy Photos?

cashman82

Ok, paperwork has now been located.

"They" are CSB Solicitors" who are apparently acting on behalf of Parking Charge Collections Ltd as referenced on the Letter Before Claim.

Going back to the original parking ticket it states PCN Parking Solutions to make payment to. However, at the top of the ticket it states Parking Charge Collections Ltd.

cashman82

So far this is the trail of paperwork:

1. PCN received 28/01/2016
2. Appeal sent: 11/02/2016
3. Parking Charge Collections Ltd replied stating appeal denied (shock). Post date: 19/02/2016
4. Ultimate Customer Solutions send letter stating the driver was the addressee (they were not). The addressee is the keeper. Post date: 22/03/2016
5. Letter sent to UCS stating debt was denied giving reasons Inc addressee not being the driver: 01/04/2016
6. Letter received from UCS stating they are a member of IPC and that my appeal was rejected (yawn)
7. CSB Solicitors send a letter threatening charges of £202.25 if no payment: 03/05/2016
8. Further letter received from UCS saying they have reduced the fee due by 70%: 11/07/2016
9. CSB Solicitors send Letter before claim: 02/03/2017

Umkomaas

they've now sent me a before action claim which I need to address within 14 days.

How exactly is that letter headed?

Is it the same as this one?

http://s1159.photobucket.com/user/RUNDMC73/media/Parking%20Solicitors%20Letter_zpsyo2u6rqz.jpg.html

cashman82

No, that is the format of the letter referred to in the previous post as #7.

beamerguy

cashman82 wrote: »

Ok, paperwork has now been located.

"They" are CSB Solicitors" who are apparently acting on behalf of Parking Charge Collections Ltd as referenced on the Letter Before Claim.

Going back to the original parking ticket it states PCN Parking Solutions to make payment to. However, at the top of the ticket it states Parking Charge Collections Ltd.

Looking at the CSB site
http://www.csblaw.co.uk/services/debt-recovery/

They appear to be in debt collection mode with a CBC

Such letters are sent to scare you into paying
I see in the letter they are charging a warrant fee of £100
A warrant is only issued if you go to court, lose and do not pay within 28 days.
The warrant is instructing court bailiffs.
You have not yet been to court so they make a wild assumption they will win especially
if ghost ticketing is introduced to the judge
I thought the warrant actually costs £110

This is a very misleading letter and should be reported to the SRA
CSB Solicitors Limited regulated in England and Wales with company number 9048710. CSB Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with number 614703.
https://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

At this point, you can reply to them only in writing using the post office and get a free postal receipt.

Deny any debt as the registered keeper and request proof of their claim. The reply will show their knowledge of the parking industry and we can take it from there

The letter should only show the name of the keeper and the keepers address.
No other info such phone number

cashman82

I am not scared by their threats as I truly believe that I was not in the wrong. I would have avoided all this hassle and paid the 20p fee to park if I'd known it was a P&D.

I've also studied law and worked within a licensing environment so I know when things don't appear to be quite legitimate and none of their letters have looked even half official. No names to reply to, photocopied letterheads and signatures. It angers me that others will pay regardless.

What I do not want is a default against the keeper as I had to convince them not to pay the fine. I have never been in a situation where someone has continued to chase to such an extent after an event over a poxy £60 fine. The time and effort and surely payout on their part would have amounted to more than that by now?

I assume that should it get that far (not saying it will as I have been made aware that they do not seem to proceed that far) I am able to argue the case and show that I have done all that was necessary not to seem like I was just shirking it.

Does it matter that so far the keeper is still presumed to be the driver? We can prove that they were not as they were elsewhere sending emails.

Half_way

if you've studied law and worked in licencing then surely you know there are not fines.

beamerguy

cashman82 wrote: »

I am not scared by their threats as I truly believe that I was not in the wrong. I would have avoided all this hassle and paid the 20p fee to park if I'd known it was a P&D.

I've also studied law and worked within a licensing environment so I know when things don't appear to be quite legitimate and none of their letters have looked even half official. No names to reply to, photocopied letterheads and signatures. It angers me that others will pay regardless.

What I do not want is a default against the keeper as I had to convince them not to pay the fine. I have never been in a situation where someone has continued to chase to such an extent after an event over a poxy £60 fine. The time and effort and surely payout on their part would have amounted to more than that by now?

I assume that should it get that far (not saying it will as I have been made aware that they do not seem to proceed that far) I am able to argue the case and show that I have done all that was necessary not to seem like I was just shirking it.

Does it matter that so far the keeper is still presumed to be the driver? We can prove that they were not as they were elsewhere sending emails.

The only time a default is issued is if they turn up in court and the keeper does not

They can presume all they want so you keep all your aces up your sleeve, the least they know at this stage the better

cashman82

I studied a level law and was not that good at it (but I know the ins and outs and understand that there are processes involved in these things)
I did not licence car parks but again, had processed that had to be adhered to and sent letters requesting money under the obligations of an act of law.

I have learned a lot within the last year in reference to the world of parking charges but there are cases which have gone against people and each company appears to take a different approach when demanding their funds. Months have gone by and I naively thought that this was out of my hair so I have not followed up on it for a while. What I have read though is that I should not ignore the letter before claim and that the best approach now is to address the authenticity of the LBC.

There is so much information out there (which I have tried to absorb) that it can get confusing as to what route I should take now and I'm appealing to you good people to advise me on the best path now that I have located all the past correspondence.

I am truly grateful for everyone's input and time taken to respond.

beamerguy

cashman82 wrote: »

I studied a level law and was not that good at it (but I know the ins and outs and understand that there are processes involved in these things)
I did not licence car parks but again, had processed that had to be adhered to and sent letters requesting money under the obligations of an act of law.

I have learned a lot within the last year in reference to the world of parking charges but there are cases which have gone against people and each company appears to take a different approach when demanding their funds. Months have gone by and I naively thought that this was out of my hair so I have not followed up on it for a while. What I have read though is that I should not ignore the letter before claim and that the best approach now is to address the authenticity of the LBC.

There is so much information out there (which I have tried to absorb) that it can get confusing as to what route I should take now and I'm appealing to you good people to advise me on the best path now that I have located all the past correspondence.

I am truly grateful for everyone's input and time taken to respond.

Well, I now assume that just in last few days you have increased your knowledge by 100%

As already said, write to them, deny any debt and demand proof and lets see what they reply with