Urgent Help with multiple PCNs!!

Quentin

Joseph123 wrote: »

Would it be worth me starting a thread on Pepipoo?

Maybe an idea

Herzlos

Joseph123 wrote: »

All its says is that you must stay on site or face a fee.

What exactly does it say about leaving the site?

To me the whole thing seems like fishing to catch people out. There's no machine or option to pay for parking but someone is clearly hanging about at all times of the night waiting to dish out PCNs.

That's exactly what it is. It's pretty easy pickings waiting for people to park out of hours and leave the site.

Joseph123

Herzlos wrote: »

What exactly does it say about leaving the site?



That's exactly what it is. It's pretty easy pickings waiting for people to park out of hours and leave the site.

It says "the driver and passengers of the vehicle must remain on site throughout the entire period of parking"

Joseph123

Letter for Miah - is it good to go on Monday? Thanks



Dear Sir

Ref XXXXX

I have received your later dated 12/08/2016

Notwithstanding that I deny any debt to UKCPS, I note that your letter demands £60 for legal costs

Your client has either failed woefully in its duty to mitigate costs or the sum has not been incurred and the demand is fraudulent. In neither case am I liable for the payment. I remind you that, as the sum demanded is less than £10,000, this is a small claim. As a result, you have no entitlement to recover legal fees.

If you insist that the charge is justified, please provide a copy of your invoice to UKCPS. If this is not possible, please confirm :
1. The Invoice number and details of the VAT component
2. The date that your client paid the invoice
3. Details of the time spent and activities performed beyond sending a simple template letter for which you charged the client £60, including the name of the solicitor who wrote the letter.

If none of the requested information is provided, I require a full explanation for the charge. I would also draw your attention to section 2 of the Fraud Act (2006). If you know that these fees have not in fact been incurred by your client, then your letter is guilty of fraud by false representation.

I remind you that parties are under a duty of transparency; as such, I require a response to these reasonable questions. Please be aware that, should your client decide to commence with legal proceedings, this correspondence forms part of their pre-court conduct, and I believe the judge would take a very dim view of any attempt to evade answering my concerns.

To me, this appears to be a debt collection letter masquerading as a Letter Before Claim, and as such it breaches both the Practice Direction on Pre-Court Action, as well as the SRA’s Code of Conduct. I will not enter into any discussion of the UKCPS parking charge until I am satisfied by your reply.

Would you also clarify under what process you are working - litigant or debt collector? The email address provided for correspondence (debtrecovery@themiahsolicitors.co.uk) and signature (‘Debt Recovery Team’) would indicate that you are acting as debt collector. You do not appear to be registered with the Credit Services Association so I am slightly confused why you are acting as a collection agency when you are not a member.

I will also be writing to the SRA to clarify this and to make a formal complaint against your firm for breach of professional conduct. Based on public forums it is immediately apparent that this is a template letter that has been sent to dozens of other people, and there is no way that you could have run up £60 in legal fees for such a letter. You appear to be in breach of the Code of Conduct in at least three instances.
I note that you make reference to the Supreme Court Ruling in November 2015. I would make you aware that that ruling was in relation to a commercial car park, unlike this case, where loss of earning was taken in to consideration.

Do not contact me again other than to provide the answers to my questions

Thank You

Yours Faithfully

The_Deep

Miah cropped up a lot here about a year ago , but since then we appear to have heard very little, I wonder if the SRA gave them a warning.

ISTR that one of their advisors/associates, a solicitor called Ian Brill was involved in a boiler room scam and fined a large amount of money.

More reading

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5067178

and much much more

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ian+brill+solicitor+leeds

Joseph123

Hello everyone,
I hope you are all well!

So the story continues. I sent the above letter to MIAH in August 2016 and heard nothing from them for 4 months... New year, new attempt from MIAH it appears. I received the following letter in the post -

http://
i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg565/parkingproblems123/2115830%20MIAH%202_zpsarkl1skw.jpeg

MIAH have not answered any of the queries in the above letter I sent them as they say 'communication via letter is not productive' but interestingly have offered to happily discuss over the phone.

They have also offered a reduced offer of £130 as opposed to £185

As they are now refusing to communicate further via letter, how would you suggest I respond? They say their next step will be to consult their client regarding legal proceedings

Much appreciated as always!

Coupon-mad

Have a look at any recent threads you find when you search 'LBCCC' on this board, as any robust response to UKPCS' solicitor looks reasonable later at any hearing.

Joseph123

Thanks CouponMad

I have had a read through a few of the threads on the board and zzzLazyDaisy's LBCCC thread.

I'm just a bit unsure in what would be suitable to include at this stage as the letter from MIAH is not an LBCCC but what one would assume is a letter threatening an LBCCC. Any tips on what to include in a response to this? Or could you point me more specifically to a similar thread?

Thank you

Quentin

It wouldn't be a good idea to ring them! They are trying to trick you into this by telling you they won't communicate any other way!

Coupon-mad

http://
i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg565/parkingproblems123/2115830%20MIAH%202_zpsarkl1skw.jpeg

I would reply because it looks more reasonable in court later. Trouble is, what you are describing is a 'rogue parker' situation - it's not a free car park for all and sundry out of hours. Sadly, people who park like that are why scam PPCs and clampers had the excuse to exist.

I think this will be a harder one to win at court and signage not being lit is about the only/main thing you can put forward in defence, should they try a claim. But even then, the car was parked there several times and a Judge might suggest the driver knew by then that parking was not allowed because it was for patients only. A Judge might see the driver as a repeat 'offender' and take a dim view.

Just being honest here! However, respond because it looks more reasonable later on at a hearing.

I would be stating that you have noted their refusal to comply with the Practice Direction and the overriding objectives, namely to make efforts to resolve matters outside of court and to establish a level playing field in terms of exchange of information, to establish the facts and narrow the issues under dispute.

State that you will certainly not be telephoning a debt collector - whether they use solicitor headed notepaper or not - and if they send a compliant Letter Before Claim, you will respond further.

However, the driver has never been established and any signage at this site was unlit with any parking charge buried in small print. Further, the sum claimed appears to have been plucked out of thin air and bears no relation to the sum on the NTK, which is the only sum that can potentially be recovered, as stated in the POFA Schedule 4 which reiterates that 'this is not to be read as permitting double recovery'.

I would NOT remind them of the other PCNs...