DRP & NApier

JBlackmore_2

8 July 2016 we were called out to a private leasehold flat to attend to a suspected gas leak – Beaufort Park Estate, Hendon, London.

9 Aug 2016 an NTK (POFA 2012) was sent stating a Fixed Charge Notice for £95 had been attached to vehicle on expiry of P&D ticket.

15 Aug 2016 We appealed that our engineer did not find the FCN on the vehicle. Also as he was attending to a gas leak he was unable to leave the property until it was made safe.
We enclosed a copy of the invoice to the customer and requested Napier cancel.

23 Aug Napier rejected, saying they had considered our letter but the vehicle was parked “in breach of the clearly displayed T&C’s.” They offered a discount to £50
If paid within 14 days or an appeal to the IAS within 21 days.

After several DRP letters we have received this letter from BW Legal. Should we treat it as a formal letter before claim and request more info from them now?

The_Deep

"We will seek our client's instruction" means not an LBA but a debt collection letter, and BW legal is another low rent firm specialising in aiding and abetting these scammers.

IMO they would be insane to take this to court, but some of these companies are none too bright.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

System

This one is going to be interesting. I'll put it in my diary.

First they came for the gasman, and I did not speak out!!!8212;
Because I was not a gasman.

Then they came for the milkman, and I did not speak out!!!8212;
Because I was not a milkman.

Then they came for the postman, and I did not speak out!!!8212;
Because I was not a postman.

Then they came for me!!!8212;and there was no one left to speak for me.

nosferatu1001

I would respond, mostly because the court probably wont care if it is a real LBA or not - theyll just see you ignoring solicitors.

SImply state your previous position si unchanged, and you require them to refer the debt back to their principal and not contact you again.

Coupon-mad

Why not ask for evidence of the legal fees expenditure and ask on what basis their client is holding your company liable for time spent by a Gas Engineer fixing an emergency gas leak and making it safe.

Remind them that:

HHJ Charles Harris, a Senior Circuit Judge hearing on appeal the case of Jopson v Homeguard in 2016, stated that life in a block of flats would be impossible if delivery/emergency vehicles could not stop for the time it would take to address what he described as a 'vicissitude'. This must be considered on all fours with that finding. On what planet are Napier owed an unconscionable sum of money every time an emergency Gas Engineer - or even an Ambulance or Fire engine - has to attend this site for the safety of the residents?

Would Napier rather our company boycotts this location, spreads the word to other local Gas Engineers that it is a no-go area, so we all refuse to attend gas leaks while Napier still infest the site, or alternatively, how about we charge these people a extra £100 a call out to cover Napier's charge and admin in dealing with this pathetic threat? Clearly this would drive away residents in the long run as publicity spread that an entire block was having to pay an extra 3 figures or not have Gas Leaks attended. This conduct undoubtedly falls foul of the Unfair Terms Act - there was not agreed charge, no contract with Napier.

This is just the sort of situation that Sir Greg Knight will be interested in.

We are planning to contact him and the local Trading Standards Officers, as well as to warn the site landowner/Managing Agent what is going on, since it involves their tenants' and/or leaseholders' safety in the buildings. This situation cannot continue, must be in breach of the landowner's covenants, removing the residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment of their property; it represents a serious nuisance and danger for residents at this location.

It seems that Napier is prepared to create a stand-off, holding Gas Engineers to ransom. This cannot end well for your client and we are prepared to fight this in court, and are now charging for our replies at a reasonable rate, given the waste of man hours spent on the matter. Please find our first invoice attached; we will be charging £50 a time for replying to any pre-court letter.

We are certain Mr de Savary, as a business man himself, will understand our untenable position and we ask that the matter is now referred to him personally, as Napier's owner. Should the charge now be cancelled, and assurances be made that this will never happen again, we will waive our invoice. Napier should consider this to be a last chance drop-hands offer.

It is clear that the so-called private parking 'industry' is skating on thin ice in 2018. These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the 'curse' of the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018):

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

As you are a company (am I right?) I would start attaching an invoice for £50 every time your company has to respond. See above...adapt to suit, get angry.

Copy in Trading Standards, your local MP and the site owner/Managing agent to really put the cat among the pigeons.