OPC Formal Notices over 3 years later

KeithP

Just a small point, but I would move the paragraph about your current address to the top of the letter.

dadsma

Thank you Keith - will do.

Re your question in post 2 asking if OPC had really put "Without prejudice" at the top of their letters. They did, so what significance does that have, if any?

KeithP

It's complicated, but put simply, my understanding is that the contents of a 'without prejudice' letter cannot be produced in court.

It just seems really strange that a potential Claimant would use that phrase on that type of letter.

But I am not a lawyer.

Coupon-mad

Nor are the ex-clampers at OPC! I am guessing they have no clue what it means.

dadsma

Does that mean that if it goes to court the defendant cannot include the
"Without prejudice" letter in his evidence pack but can include his reply which quotes from the letter?

Here is draft no.3 to be sent to OPC - unless the forum suggests additional helpful changes. I see that some weird edits have crept into the text, typically !!!8220 and !!!8221. Does anyone on here know how to stop that happening please?


Dear Sirs,


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.

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.



Yours faithfully

[Deleted User]

Without Prejudice (W/P) correspondence is intended to allow the parties opportunity to negotiate terms of settlement or to exchange information without fear that it can later be used against them at court.

Anyone sending a W/P letter can waive that and later rely on it (after all, it is their letter/document to do that with). As a recipient you clearly cannot show such correspondence to the court.

That said, if the notice to keeper (NtK) is endorsed W/P and it is relied upon, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the terminology means. An NtK will have to go in the court bundle come what may.

Umkomaas

I doubt OPC have any understanding of what WP means at all. But I suspect they think it makes the letter look 'legal' and 'scary', just the thing to throw at the naive and vulnerable, meaning a greater chance of a money grab.

The_Deep

I doubt OPC have any understanding of what WP means


Indeer, if it was me I would write asking them for clarification. .

Le_Kirk

I see that some weird edits have crept into the text, typically !!!8220 and !!!8221. Does anyone on here know how to stop that happening please?

It seems as if it is something to do with "Smart Punctuation" on Apple devices.

Umkomaas

Le_Kirk wrote: »

It seems as if it is something to do with "Smart Punctuation" on Apple devices.

Yep, it needs to be switched off.

'Settings' > 'General' > 'Keyboard' - switch can be found there.