BATH RUH - POPLA Appeal Unsuccessful

BoutTime

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wait and see if this goes to Equita letters, or a LBCCC. If the latter, reply robustly with our help.

So basically the ball is now in their court? If I do not immediately pay they will send one of two letters? What is the point of no return for me? The LBCCC?

I really appreciate your help.

Thanks.

KeithP

What do you mean by point of no return?

You would be foolish to pay anything before county court judge orders you to do so.

Even then it's just a case of paying - which is likely to be less that the claimant wants.

BoutTime

Hi All. I've just received an LBCC. 10 pages in total including a response form. I've had a look through the PD and just want to be sure of how I initially respond to their letter.

At this point do I have to point out where their LBCC does not comply with the PD and list all of the points?

Or just reply with a fairly short letter asking them to send an LBCC that DOES comply with the PD and see what they come back with? And then check that against the PD?

We go on holiday in the next couple of days so I want to respond before we go. Should the letter be sent via registered post or can I send an email?

Many thanks in advance for your help with this.

Umkomaas

The NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 covers what you need to do.

It's the PAP that's important for you to refer to in formulating your response.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

Don't send 'Recorded', such letters can be refused and the PPC has proof they did not receive it. Instead send via first class post with a free Certificate of Posting from your PO counter. If you wish, also send via email, then all corners are covered.

BoutTime

Thanks for your reply. So I understand from reading the LBCCC Fightback Guidance thread (specifically in Post #3):

"You will note that the above letter does not even attempt to point out the various deficiencies of their LBCCC. That comes later, after they have ignored your letter and sent you their normal template FAQ letter! You will then go to post 9 and using that information, you will prepare an Acknowledgment explaining to them exactly why their LBCCC is defective (even taking into account the information contained in the FAQ letter!)"

This is why I ask whether I have to point out where the LBCC is deficient at this stage, or merely ask for and then wait for them to provide another LBCC which is compliant with the PD?

And does this mean that until they send this information I am not to complete and return any of the forms they have included with this initial LBCC?

Thanks again.

Quentin

BoutTime wrote: »

does this mean that until they send this information I am not to complete and return any of the forms they have included with this initial LBCC?

.

Don't ever return those forms!

BoutTime

Good morning All,

I'm just formulating my response to the LBCCC which states it is fully compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol For Debt Claims. On this PAPA there is no mention of the claimant having to explain their loss and how it was calculated. Can I still refer tothe PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS for this? Specifically Para 6.(a)? Am I right in believing that claimants are still obliged to abide by this?

Thanks,

BoutTime

Is there anyone happy to have a read of my draft response to the LBCCC I received from ParkingEye?

Many thanks in advance.

KeithP

Of course the Claimant has to conform with the protocols.

You do not have to believe the Claimant when he says his LBC conforms and would be unwise to do so. Check it yourself. There is a link to the Pre-Action Protocols for Debt Claims in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Post your draft response here if you wish.

The_Deep

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 House of Commons recently

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

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.