OPC Formal Notices over 3 years later

dadsma

Hi all,

The registered keeper has received six letters from Observices Parking Consultancy Ltd, seeking a total of £600 relating to parking events from around 3 and a half years ago.

They were sent to his old address where the current occupier is a relative who forwards all correspondence.

The RK had no knowledge of the alleged transgressions and these letters are the first he knows about them.

The letters are identical except for different parking dates.
e.g.

"OPC - PO Box 956 - St. Albans - AL1 9HU

Without prejudice

31 January 2018

PPC/Ticket Number: xxxxx
Date and time of issue: 22/05/2014 09.10
Vehicle: xxxx xxx
Location: Beaver Travel Watling Street Radlett 2/8

Reason for issue: Failure to display a valid permit in the front windscreen.

Dear Mr xxxxxx

Unpaid Parking Charge (photographic evidence held).

On 22/05/2014 a private parking charge was issued against the above vehicle. The driver of the vehicle has a legal obligation to pay this charge. Please be aware that you are now in default of this legal obligation.

Please note that this letter serves as formal notice to the unpaid parking charge ref xxxxx

You are hereby given notice that:

1. The Restricted Area is a controlled parking zone at which there are clearly displayed signs indicating:
a) the terms of which a vehicle may enter and/or remain in the area and:
b. ) the circumstances in which a parking charge will be made.
2. By entering and/or remaining in the Restricted Area, you agree to be bound by the displayed terms.
3. A private parking charge was issued on 22/05/2014
4. The parking charge has not been paid and it is too late to pay the discounted rate we offered to be paid within the first 14 days of issue.
5. The driver (see point 8) is now liable to pay the full private parking charge detailed above.
6. Payment may be made via:
a) Cheque or postal order to OPC at PO Box 956, St. Albans, AL1 9HU
b) Credit/debit card:
i. By completing and returning the enclosed form to OPC PO Box 956, St. Albans, AL1 9HU
ii. Making payment by telephone on 08442 640 712
7. If full payment of £100 is not received within 28 days we will have no alternative but to instruct our solicitors for them to issue proceedings in order to recover the debt.
This will result in in additional costs and charges to be added to the initial debt that may include interest, court fees and administration charges.
8. If you are a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle was hired out at the time the parking took place, please also let us know and provide us with a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. Please note that we may have a right to recover unpaid parking charges from you.

Yours sincerely

OPC

OPC is a trade name of Observices Parking Consultancy Ltd.
Company Reg No. 3182298
Registered Address: The Studio, St Nicholas Close, Elstree, Hertfordshire, WD6 3EW"


A few questions spring to mind.

The RK is concerned that the letter being served as formal notice together with point 7 could be interpreted as constituting a Letter Before Claim. Would the forum advise please?

If not, then is it advisable that the RK ignores it or replies stating that the alleged events were several years ago, OPC have no legal basis to pursue the RK and the RK has no obligation to name any possible drivers and will not be doing so. And anything else?

There is no mention of any trade associations that OPC belong or belonged for obtaining the RK's details from the DVLA. I suggested the RK requests information from DVLA for when and who obtained their details for each event and the reasons given.

Should I suggest the RK does more than this initially?

Thank you all.

KeithP

They are not Letters Before Claim.
Have they really put "without prejudice" at the top of those letters?

They have up to six years to chase an alleged debt.

For each alleged event, sent the appeal template from post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. No need to alter the appeal text at all.


For your interest, see what you are up against:

www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Observices_Parking_Consultancy.html

Three court appearances over the last three years.
Of course no-one can predict the future and with six tickets your case may appear more tempting for them to follow through.

Coupon-mad

is it advisable that the RK ignores it or replies stating that the alleged events were several years ago, OPC have no legal basis to pursue the RK and the RK has no obligation to name any possible drivers and will not be doing so.

Yes, to look reasonable, do that.

You can use the sort of letter you find when you search the forum for 'CEL immune' which finds a letter that warns a company (not a solicitor) about their failure to follow the pre-action protocol. Change the details a bit and tweak it to suit.

Add a paragraph asking them to explain this statement, because no-one has a LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PAY A DISPUTED CONTRACTUAL ALLEGED DEBT:

The driver of the vehicle has a legal obligation to pay this charge. Please be aware that you are now in default of this legal obligation.

Ask the to explain how a registered keeper is 'in default' of a parking charge notice which was non-POFA, and whether they stand by their statement that a keeper has a 'legal obligation to pay' which is a statement that - should they repeat the misleading drivel - you will draw to the attention of the Judge, should they try a doomed small claim.

Ask if they enjoyed the Parliamentary debate exposing the industry, this month? Give them a link to watch it!

And finally, give OPC the correct address for the registered keeper, telling them to update their records or the keeper will report them to the Information Commissioner.

dadsma

Thank you KeithP

All six letters have "Without prejudice" clearly below the OPC letterhead and above the date.

C-M thank you - are you advising to do the modified 'CEL immune' letter and not send the newbies appeal as suggested by KeithP, or do both?

dadsma

Draft response letter for comments/suggested improvements.

Should I also incorporate the "newbies" appeal to give OPC the opportunity of providing a POPLA code?

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your formal notice letter of 31 January 2018. Reference xxxxxx

First of all, I hereby formally deny that any sum is due to you from me and record that this is the first I have heard from you about this alleged debt.

Your letter contains woefully insufficient detail of the alleged debt, and certainly nothing which allows me to make a sensible response, or for us to engage in any sort of dialogue about it.

You must know that from 1 October 2017 a new pre-action Protocol applies to debt claims, which sets out clearly and unambiguously the steps that each party must take prior to proceedings being issued. Prior to 1 October 2017, the Practice Direction !!!8211; Pre-Action Conduct applied to such claims. Pursuant to paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol, the sanctions contained in paragraphs 13-16 of the Practice Direction continue to apply.


The Practice Direction and the Protocol are both part of the CPR and the obligations contained therein are binding !!!8211; they are not merely a !!!8220;guide!!!8221; or !!!8220;best practice!!!8221;. As a potential litigant of these types of claims, you must make yourself familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Protocol. The Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whoever they are and whatever the size or type of the claim. Their express purpose is to assist parties in understanding a claim and each other!!!8217;s position, so that they may each take stock and negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.


Nobody, including you, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and Protocol. The obligation for you to give certain information about the claim is contained in paragraphs 3, 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction and paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol; the obligation on me to respond is contained in paragraphs 3 and 6(b) of the Practice Direction and paragraphs 4 and 5.1 of the Protocol. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Protocol and paragraphs 8-12 of the Practice Direction then provide for us to engage in meaningful dialogue.


Your point no. 7 - in stating that should you not receive payment within 28 days you "will have no alternative but to instruct our solicitors for them to issue proceedings" leads me to believe that your letter can reasonably be assumed to be a de facto "Letter Before Claim" yet it flies in the face of these obligations. It does not draw my attention to the Protocol/Practice Direction, and it lacks any specificity or detail at all. It is astounding that a commercial entity in the business of pursuing a small claim has sent such a letter in complete ignorance of its obligations.

Your letter states that the land is a "Restricted Area" which "is a controlled parking zone at which there are clearly displayed signs indicating:
a) the terms of which a vehicle may enter and/or remain in the area and:
b. ) the circumstances in which a parking charge will be made"
And that
"By entering and/or remaining in the Restricted Area, you agree to be bound by the displayed terms"

However you have failed to provide me with any of the key terms of the signage that was supposedly displayed on the land in question at the time of the alleged transgression in May 2014 which it is asserted form the basis of a contract between you and the driver of the vehicle.

You state that a private parking charge was issued on 22/05/2014 yet you provide no evidence of any such charge being issued or to whom and by what method it was purportedly served.

You state "The parking charge has not been paid and it is too late to pay the discounted rate we offered to be paid within the first 14 days of issue." However you fail to state the amount of that original charge.

You state that the driver of the vehicle has an obligation to pay the parking charge issued on 22/05/2014 and that I (the Registered Keeper) "are now in default of this legal obligation". I would be grateful for your explanation of the basis of such a statement because no-one has a legal obligation to pay a disputed commercial contactual alleged debt.
Kindly further explain how a registered keeper can be 'in default' of a parking charge notice which was non-POFA 2012.

Please confirm for clarity whether you stand by your statement that I (the keeper) have a 'legal obligation' to pay. Should you confirm your misleading statement I will draw it to the attention of the Court.


There is nothing which shows me that a contract was entered into, what the terms of the alleged contract are, what the original alleged debt was, how the additional amount has arisen and what sum has been added in order to reach the total of £100.

Your letter also fails to enclose the documents set out in paragraphs 3.1(b), (c) and (d) of the Protocol, which you are obliged to send to me, nor does it include any detail about the debt, how any alleged contract was entered into, or what its terms were, as required by paragraphs 3.1 (i) to (viii).

Further, your letter demands a reply from me within 28 days, contrary to the 30 days which should be allowed according to the Protocol (paragraph 4.2).

In short, there appears to be nothing at all in the letter which is compliant with the Protocol. This is a serious matter.

I put you on notice that I require you to comply with the Protocol before you take any steps to issue proceedings, otherwise I will ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with your pre-action obligations pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction, and when costs come to be considered (paragraphs 15(c) and 16 of the Practice Direction).

In particular, I require you to send me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action;
2. Whether you are pursuing me as driver or keeper of the vehicle;
3. If as driver, what evidence you have that I was driving the vehicle on the day in question and on what basis you assert that I was driving;
4. If as keeper, how you claim that I can be liable as such and evidence of a Notice to Keeper being delivered to me and on what date, and a copy of that document;
5. Any photographic or other evidence you have of the vehicle being parked on the land at the time of the alleged contravention.
6. Whether you are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012;
7. How the debt claimed arose and how it has been calculated, including details of the original charge, and any interest and administrative or other charges added;
8. A full copy of the terms of the contract it is alleged was entered into;
9. A copy of the contract between you and the landowner under which you claim authority to bring the claim and authority to issue parking charges on the date in question;
10. A plan of the land in question showing where any signs were displayed;
11. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed);
12. A copy of any previous correspondence you claim was sent to me since 22 05 2014
by your or your debt collecting agents or solicitors, including any Notice to Keeper;
13. A copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form required by the Protocol.

If you do not provide me with this information within the 30 days required by paragraph 5.2 of the Protocol, and/or if you issue a Claim before doing so, then I put you on notice that I will apply for an immediate stay and order under paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction, and for sanctions to be applied against you (paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol). I will rely on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855.

Until you comply with your obligations and provide this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings.

As I am sure you know, the court has the power in a small claim to award costs if a party behaves unreasonably: I also put you on notice that it is my intention to apply for such an order given your conduct.

Please note that my current address as former registered keeper of the vehicle is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to which all future correspondence should be sent. I expect you to update your records immediately. Should you fail to comply I will report you to the Information Commissioner.


Yours faithfully

System

Add in a copy of this article and ask what difference there is between the letter sent and the facts raised in this case.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/03/31/26000-fine-for-parking-firm/

Umkomaas

OPC were in 'no man's land' for a number of years through not being a member of either the BPA or IPC. I don't know the dates, unfortunately, but around 3 years ago might fall into that period. In that position they would have no access to DVLA records and the only way they could obtain any name and address would be if the driver/keeper responded directly to them after receipt of the windscreen ticket.

So if you didn't respond to windscreen tickets it would be in your interest to ask (by letter) the DVLA just who accessed you data, and on what dates. You need to give them a range of dates, and I would start with 12 months prior to the alleged infringements and right up to the current date. You never know what tricks are played in this game - possibly going through a back catalogue of unpaid PCNs, then sending enquiries off to the DVLA many years on.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.za/2015/06/dvla-reverse-position-on-charging-to.html

In parallel I would email the BPA and ask for a list of 'from-to' periods of any and all memberships held with them by OPC.

aos@britishparking.co.uk

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Lega;, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]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.[/FONT]

dadsma

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Add in a copy of this article and ask what difference there is between the letter sent and the facts raised in this case.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/03/31/26000-fine-for-parking-firm/

I'll suggest the RK does that and the other suggestions of contacting the BPA and complaining to his MP. The DVLA enquiry has been sent.

As OPC are chasing payment for identical events on six seperate dates, is it recommended the RK send a letter for each one or will one suffice with all six reference numbers?

Coupon-mad

Send one very strongly worded letter (the above, plus IamEmanresu's addition is great) and insist at the end, that they cease and desist with threatening and harassing the keeper for six non-POFA 'charges' for which a keeper cannot be liable. Should OPC disagree, they must comply with the pre-action protocol and if a claim then follows, it is reasonable that the keeper expects ONE single claim and one set of costs/paperwork, for all 'PCNs' where OPC believe they have a cause of action.

Given the fact that all these unreasonable charges rely on essentially the same facts, if OPC attempt to issue several claims, you will ask the court to strike out the subsequent claims and will use the Claimant's conduct as evidence of wholly unreasonable and vexatious conduct, and will seek full costs on the indemnity basis.

dadsma

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Send one very strongly worded letter (the above, plus IamEmanresu's addition is great) and insist at the end, that they cease and desist with threatening and harassing the keeper for six non-POFA 'charges' for which a keeper cannot be liable. Should OPC disagree, they must comply with the pre-action protocol and if a claim then follows, it is reasonable that the keeper expects ONE single claim and one set of costs/paperwork, for all 'PCNs' where OPC believe they have a cause of action.

Given the fact that all these unreasonable charges rely on essentially the same facts, if OPC attempt to issue several claims, you will ask the court to strike out the subsequent claims and will use the Claimant's conduct as evidence of wholly unreasonable and vexatious conduct, and will seek full costs on the indemnity basis.

How about this, draft 2:

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of six of your formal notice letters, identical except for the dates of the alleged parking transgressions.
31 January 2018. Reference xxxxxx date of alleged charge xxxx2014
Xx Xx 2018. Reference xxxxxx date of alleged charge xxxx2014
Xx Xx 2018. Reference xxxxxx date of alleged charge xxxx2014
Xx Xx 2018. Reference xxxxxx date of alleged charge xxxx2014
Xx Xx 2018. Reference xxxxxx date of alleged charge xxxx2014
Xx Xx 2018. Reference xxxxxx date of alleged charge xxxx2014

First of all, I hereby formally deny that any sums are due to you from me and record that the above letters are the first I have heard from you about the alleged debts.

Your letter contains woefully insufficient detail of the alleged debts, and certainly nothing which allows me to make a sensible response, or for us to engage in any sort of dialogue about it.

You must know that from 1 October 2017 a new pre-action Protocol applies to debt claims, which sets out clearly and unambiguously the steps that each party must take prior to proceedings being issued. Prior to 1 October 2017, the Practice Direction !!!8211; Pre-Action Conduct applied to such claims. Pursuant to paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol, the sanctions contained in paragraphs 13-16 of the Practice Direction continue to apply.


The Practice Direction and the Protocol are both part of the CPR and the obligations contained therein are binding !!!8211; they are not merely a !!!8220;guide!!!8221; or !!!8220;best practice!!!8221;. As a potential litigant of these types of claims, you must make yourself familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Protocol. The Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whoever they are and whatever the size or type of the claim. Their express purpose is to assist parties in understanding a claim and each other!!!8217;s position, so that they may each take stock and negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.


Nobody, including you, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and Protocol. The obligation for you to give certain information about the claim is contained in paragraphs 3, 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction and paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol; the obligation on me to respond is contained in paragraphs 3 and 6(b) of the Practice Direction and paragraphs 4 and 5.1 of the Protocol. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Protocol and paragraphs 8-12 of the Practice Direction then provide for us to engage in meaningful dialogue.


Regarding your point no.7. By stating that should you not receive payment within 28 days you "will have no alternative but to instruct our solicitors for them to issue proceedings" you lead me to believe that your letter can reasonably be assumed to be a de facto "Letter Before Claim" yet it flies in the face of these obligations. It does not draw my attention to the Protocol/Practice Direction, and it lacks any specificity or detail at all. It is astounding that a commercial entity in the business of pursuing a small claim has sent such letters in complete ignorance of its obligations.

Your letter states that the land is a "Restricted Area" which "is a controlled parking zone at which there are clearly displayed signs indicating:
a) the terms of which a vehicle may enter and/or remain in the area and:
b. ) the circumstances in which a parking charge will be made"
And that
"By entering and/or remaining in the Restricted Area, you agree to be bound by the displayed terms"

However you have failed to provide me with any of the key terms of the signage that was supposedly clearly displayed on the land in question on the dates of the alleged transgressions which it is asserted form the basis of a contract between you and the driver of the vehicle for each date.

You state that a private parking charge was issued for each of the dates yet you provide no evidence of any such charges being issued or to whom and by what method each was purportedly served.

You state "The parking charge has not been paid and it is too late to pay the discounted rate we offered to be paid within the first 14 days of issue." However you fail to state the amount of that original charge.

You state that the driver of the vehicle has an obligation to pay the parking charge and that I (the Registered Keeper) "are now in default of this legal obligation". I would be grateful for your explanation of the basis of such a statement because no-one has a legal obligation to pay a disputed commercial contactual alleged debt.

Kindly also explain how a registered keeper can be 'in default' of a parking charge notice which was non-POFA.

Please confirm for clarity whether you stand by your statement that I (the keeper) have a 'legal obligation' to pay. Should you confirm your misleading statement I will draw it to the attention of the Court.


There is nothing which shows me that a contract was entered into, what the terms of the alleged contract are, what the original alleged debt was, how the additional amount has arisen and what sum has been added in order to reach the total of £100.

Your letter also fails to enclose the documents set out in paragraphs 3.1(b), (c) and (d) of the Protocol, which you are obliged to send to me, nor does it include any detail about the debt, how any alleged contract was entered into, or what its terms were, as required by paragraphs 3.1 (i) to (viii).

Further, your letter demands a reply from me within 28 days, contrary to the 30 days which should be allowed according to the Protocol (paragraph 4.2).

In short, there appears to be nothing at all in the letters which is compliant with the Protocol. This is a serious matter.

I put you on notice that I require you to comply with the Protocol before you take any steps to issue proceedings, otherwise I will ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with your pre-action obligations pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction, and when costs come to be considered (paragraphs 15(c) and 16 of the Practice Direction).

In particular, I require you to send me the following information/documents,for each of the six alleged parking events.

1. An explanation of the cause of action;
2. Whether you are pursuing me as driver or keeper of the vehicle;
3. If as driver, what evidence you have that I was driving the vehicle on the day in question and on what basis you assert that I was driving;
4. If as keeper, how you claim that I can be liable as such and evidence of a Notice to Keeper being delivered to me and on what date, and a copy of that document;
5. Any photographic or other evidence you have of the vehicle being parked on the land at the time of the alleged contravention.
6. Whether you are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012;
7. How the debt claimed arose and how it has been calculated, including details of the original charge, and any interest and administrative or other charges added;
8. A full copy of the terms of the contract it is alleged was entered into;
9. A copy of the contract between you and the landowner under which you claim authority to bring the claim and authority to issue parking charges on the date in question;
10. A plan of the land in question showing where any signs were displayed;
11. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed);
12. A copy of any previous correspondence you claim was sent to me since 22 05 2014
by your or your debt collecting agents or solicitors, including any Notice to Keeper;
13. A copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form required by the Protocol.

If you do not provide me with this information within the 30 days required by paragraph 5.2 of the Protocol, and/or if you issue a Claim before doing so, then I put you on notice that I will apply for an immediate stay and order under paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction, and for sanctions to be applied against you (paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol). I will rely on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855.

Until you comply with your obligations and provide this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings.

As I am sure you know, the court has the power in a small claim to award costs if a party behaves unreasonably: I also put you on notice that it is my intention to apply for such an order given your conduct.

I attach a copy of a newspaper article relating to a criminal court case regarding your private parking charges in which I understand your company was prosecuted by Trading Standards in the Magistrates Court, found guilty and fined a substantial sum of money. Please would you explain what differences exist between the letters you have sent to me and the facts raised in the court case.

Here is the internet link for the article

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/03/31/26000-fine-for-parking-firm/

Finally, I expect you to cease and desist threatening and harassing me, the Registered Keeper, for six non-POFA 'charges' for which a keeper cannot be liable. You have no lawful basis on which to retain my data therefore I expect you to remove and permanently delete my data from your records.

Should you disagree, you must comply with the pre-action protocol and if a claim then follows, it is reasonable for me to expect ONE single claim and one set of costs/paperwork, for all 'PCNs' where you believe that you have a cause of action. Given the fact that all these unreasonable charges rely on essentially the same facts, if you attempt to issue several claims, I will ask the court to strike out the subsequent claims and will use your conduct as evidence of wholly unreasonable and vexatious conduct, and I will seek full costs on the indemnity basis.

Please note that my current address as former registered keeper of the vehicle is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to which all future correspondence should be sent and you should update your records immediately. Should you fail to comply I will report you to the Information Commissioner.


Yours faithfully