Appeal rejected, go to IAS appeal next ?

rob800

Thanks, Am I best going with the Daniel San template from the sticky ?

KeithP

Yes, that's a good basis.

Certainly pick holes in the LBC but obviously don't ask for things they have sent or criticise things they have actually got right.

Coupon-mad

Show us your draft, suitably adapted. Is your case exactly like his?

rob800

Hi, please see my draft below, I have highlighted the sections I have added. Any thoughts would be great :-)




ear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of xxxx.



Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon, as I have requested copies of on xxxx. In particular you have not provided any photographic evidence of sufficient quality for me to be able to assess the validity of the alleged claim. The poor quality photographs shown on the myparkingcharge website mainly show a vehicle with a partially obscured number plate. Therefore, they are not sufficient for me to even identify if this is my vehicle or not. The only photograph apparently showing the number plate of my vehicle is a close up photo of the number plate, which could have been taken anywhere. This does not allow me to even confirm where it was taken, let alone the validity of the alleged infringement. Please provide comprehensive photographic evidence, from multiple angles, that undisputedly show the vehicle (including full unobscured number plate) in the car park in question and committing the alleged offence (including the location of all signs nearby).

You note in your letter that I did not appeal to IAS. This is due to the fact that the IAS is not an independent appeals service and is well known as a heavily biased !!!8216;kangaroo court!!!8217; created for the benefit of IPC members, in order to attempt to offer a false perception that you have offered an independent, impartial appeals service. A county court judge will be well aware of this and the fact that you offered no independent appeal facility whatsoever (unlike other companies).


Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 !!!8220;establishing yourself as the creditor!!!8221;
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed and the measurements of all parking spaces in the car park.
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form


If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying 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 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided 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 your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.




Please note that I suffer from anxiety and depression which I am on medication for. I also suffer from gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), which I am also on medication for. This condition is severely affected by stress and anxiety. These conditions have been severely aggregated by your unreasonable and aggressive pursuit of this alleged claim against me. This is causing significant distress and is affecting my quality of life. I am having to seek medical reassessment of my medication as a result, which is likely to result in additional medication and/or dosages being required. This all being documented as evidence to provide to the court for when I counter claim for the distress caused by your actions against me. I would recommend that you reconsider your intention to proceed in light of the information provided in this letter.







Yours faithfully

rob800

Any thoughts please guys ? :-)

Umkomaas

These conditions have been severely aggregated by your unreasonable and aggressivepursuit of this alleged claim against me.

Aggravated?
Aggressive pursuit?

This is all being documented as evidence to provide to the court for when I counter claim for the distress caused by your actions against me.

Coupon-mad

You could add to this bit:

You note in your letter that I did not appeal to IAS, which is not obligatory and would have been a case of ''futilely going through the motions'' according to an IPC firm's mistakenly shared email that is in the public domain. This is due to the fact that the 'IAS' is widely held to be a misnomer and is not an independent appeals service at all, and is well known as a heavily biased 'kangaroo court' created for the benefit of IPC members, in order to attempt to offer a false perception that you have offered an independent, impartial appeals service.

Parliament are well aware of the conflict of interests preventing any IPC firm from being considered to be offering anything like a fair appeals process, quotes from Hansard from 2nd February 2018 included: ''appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing'' and ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''. Therefore any socially and politically aware County Court Judge would realise [STRIKE]know this and the fact[/STRIKE] that you offered no truly independent or transparently fair appeal facility whatsoever (unlike other companies, who offer POPLA).