'Formal letter of claim' received from solicitor re unpaid CE Ltd PCN January 2016

Coupon-mad

Caroline_83 wrote: »

Should I write to Civil Enforcement Ltd or the solicitors or both?

The Solicitors. DO NOT call it an 'appeal'.

Write it robustly, assertively, like you see in every other 'Letter of/before Claim' thread. We have loads and so does pepipoo forum:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60

An example of a response (without saying who was driving!!) would be something like this I've thrown together to give you an idea:



Dear Sirs,

PCN number:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Vehicle reg:XXXXXX

I am writing in relation to your letter dated……………………..2016.

I deny any debt to your client. Apart from court fees, should your client proceed with a claim and prevail at a hearing - which seems highly unlikely - you cannot recover additional added costs. These appear to have been plucked from thin air, were not set out in any contract nor signage and indeed, the maximum sum that can potentially be recovered from me as registered keeper, would be the sum on any 'Notice to Keeper' and only if your client fully complied with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. They did not and do not comply.

I suggest your client is mistaken and they certainly have no cause of action against a registered keeper, as CEL are known not to use Schedule 4 compliant paperwork. The driver did not agree to any charge and as the keeper, I am not liable for any sum at all. This car is an 'authorised vehicle' at the Hospital site and at all times when parked in the car park, a 'nurse on call' notice was displayed.

I am aware that Wright Hassall is the subject of current controversy regarding your dealings with the British Parking Association and private parking companies. Allegations of a conflict of interest, perceived bias (as articulated by the Head of the POPLA scrutiny panel, ISPA) and concerns about a woeful lack of knowledge of the POFA have followed Wright Hassall. A series of bizarre decisions in favour of parking firms in 2016 as well as allegations of dealing with appellants unjustly (and allowing parking firms to add evidence far too late whilst denying a fair time for rebuttal evidence from consumers) are in the public domain. There are such significant concerns from reputable organisations relating to your questionable appointment to act 'instead of POPLA' at the behest of the BPA, that this causes right-minded people, like myself, to question your firm's assertions regarding any private parking charge matter.

Therefore, you will understand if I am unconvinced that you or your client have paid any regard to such vital evidence as: keeper liability, an agreed contract, clear signage or detailed photographs. You will understand why a keeper of a fully-authorised vehicle, used by a nurse at the Hospital, has not paid a charge based upon the fiction of 'unauthorised parking'.

As such, it seems to me that a reminder of your duties (to the courts, before your client) is timely at this stage:

''CPR 1.1(2) Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable – (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing.''

In particular, I have seen no evidence that the car was parked there on the evening stated nor have I seen evidence that it was 'unauthorised', nor have I seen the alleged 'contract' upon which your client intends to rely.

It is only fair that I can make an informed decision and that every effort is made by you and your client, to mitigate costs and avoid any detriment to myself by proceeding in haste to court without furnishing me with facts and evidence, thus causing an imbalance of my rights as an unrepresented consumer.

So, under the CPR 1.1 'The overriding objective' I hereby request your client's evidence by return of post, including copies of all paperwork they claim was served, all photographs taken of the car and the signage that night, if your client is not minded to cancel the charge once they review their lack of evidence and concede the fact of my non-liability.

Any claim will be defended robustly and in view of the unreasonableness of a parking regime which breaches the Government Policy in NHS car parks and the vexatiousness of pursuing a registered keeper who cannot be held liable under the applicable law, I intend to seek my own costs when I prevail.

I suggest your client ceases this ill-advised course of action and I look forward to hearing that the charge has been cancelled.

yours faithfully,


{your name and address}



And you really should raise this as a formal complaint with the NHS Trust, citing the Government Policy:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

Issuing huge fines to staff when working (and when authorised to park) which are then pursued by a third party private firm who are clearly incentivised by virtue of relying only on 'penalty income', contravenes the Principles and disregards the clear will of Parliament. So what does the Hospital have to say about that?