Advice Regarding a Solicitor's Letter

JJoel

Hi All

Please forgive me if this has already been addressed on the forum but I haven't quite come across anything which covers this situation exactly,

My partner has received a letter for settlement of "outstanding parking charge(s)". The letter has been sent by Gladstones Solicitors and states the name of the claimant (CUP Enforcement) my partner's name, vehicle registration and the total amount outstanding (£160) but does not have anything stating that it is a Letter Before Claim.

The letter states "You have previously been written to by Debt Recovery Plus (DRP) on behalf of CUP Enforcement requesting settlement of your outstanding parking charge(s). Due to the absence of payment or a valid appeal our client has instructed us to recover the total amount due to them as shown above.

As all other attempts have failed, out client may now instruct us to take legal action against you." It then goes on to say "In order to avoid any further action you should pay the full amount outstanding of £160 within 14 days of this letter"

As previously mentioned the letter does not state that it is a Letter Before Claim or anything to that effect. It does not state why the amount is £160 nor does it show the date, time or location of any parking contravention.

After doing some research I've discovered that you should reply to any LBC letter but as this does not state that it is a LBC I am looking to ignore it.

It looks like a template letter used for scare tactics but any advice as to what to do at this juncture would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Half_way

You should never ignore private parking tickets.
First a few questions...

Where was the original parking charge picked up?
What was the name of the parking company?
why was the parking charge issued in the first place?

Quentin

The use of "may" does look to confirm it's a debt collector letter rather than a LBC.

twhitehousescat

As all other attempts have failed,


so , do they expect you to pay £60 for aa company (DR+) that has failed to do its job , DR+ are not on the same level as goverment ministers or polatatins , they are paid on RESULTS not failure

JJoel

I believe the charge was picked up in a McDonalds car park, I am unsure of the name of the parking company but I can find out. I'm not sure why it was issued in the first place as it was a few years back now.

Half_way

Met parking at a guess?
second guess overstay, or the driver was in the toilet during a driver survey, that is when someone claiming to be from met shouted out random registration numbers and if no one replied they took that to mean that the driver wasn't in the McDonalds and issued a parking charge notice

Loadsofchildren123

Some of the wording indicates this is a LBC.
There is no law that says you must respond to a LBC.
However, there is a Practice Direction- Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols which sets out what each party is expected to do when proceedings are contemplated. It is part of the CPR (the court rules). It provides that a Claimant should provide sufficient details of the claim and how they will prove it, including providing copies of the core documents they will rely on (eg contract with landowner, signage etc), and it provides that a Defendant will do the same with regard to how they intend to defend it. The aim of this is to flush out weak claims or weak defences and encourage early settlement. There are sanctions for not complying with it - if a Claimant has not complied the case could be stayed until they have, or even if they win they can get a costs order against them. If a Defendant has not complied, the case won't be stayed because that would punish the Claimant, but an adverse costs order can be made even if the Defendant wins. The whole point is to avoid trial by ambush of the nature the PPCs love.
So unless you think it's just a debt collector letter, I'd reply to draw attention to paragraphs 3 and 6 and 12, 14 and 15 and ask them specifically to set out the details of the claim (list specific details you want - eg dates and times of alleged parking, amount of parking charges) and the documents on which they intend to rely (refer to specific documents you would expect to see - the landowner contract, evidence of the landowner, a plan of the signage, details of the signage (wording, measurements, font size, height at which displayed etc), photographs of the car etc). And that until they provide this you cannot understand the claim or deal with it. Refer them specifically to the court sanctions for non compliance (paras 12, 14, 15). Perhaps post a copy of the letter you intend to send on here for people to comment?
If they refuse to answer such a list of questions (which they will probably do) then you have a good argument to ask the court to immediately stay any proceedings they issue.

JJoel

Doesn't the claimant have to issue an LBC before requesting court proceedings ? I'm just checking if I or my partner need to follow the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols as you've advised and write a letter before an LBC is issued.

Just to add, my partner whom the letter is addressed to is working abroad so I just wanted to know how this affects the current situation. Would I or someone be allowed to reply on their behalf or can this letter not be held against my partner as they have technically not taken receipt of it?

twhitehousescat

is this CUP or MET? parking


cup http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Close_Unit_Protection_Services.html


met
http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/MET_Parking_Services.html

JJoel

The letter states that the claimant is CUP Enforcement.

Redx

seems to me that DRP are sending out loads of fake letters under the GLADSTONES banner (letterhead) , using their OLD address

check if its a DRP letter in disguise before making any decisions as to what to do next

(which is either ignore , or reply and rebut and refute)

if it is a DRP letter , then there are THOUSANDS of similar letters and threads on here about it

which is why this thread was started by coupon-mad some time ago

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663