LBA letter served- Advice appreciated.

Dang_harsh_chin

Hi all. I wonder if you may help me? I appreciate this may all be a little late, however I’ve been served a ‘Letter Before Court Action’ and need some advice on how to proceed. I’ve been studying the thread on this subject posted elsewhere on the forum, but need to ask for some further info before proceeding as I can’t find specific answers to the following. I apologise if they have been answered somewhere, but I haven’t found them yet. So any pointers would be most appreciated. 



The PPC, who for now will remain nameless- which is just to stop them finding this thread easily at this stage, say they issued an NTK last autumn (specific dates also withheld for the time being, for the same reason). This spring (2018) I get a letter called ‘Final Reminder Parking Charge’ details. This contains two photos, details of the balance and says ‘we haven’t been advised within 28 days who the driver was’. But it does not include information about how the requirement to pay was brought to the drivers attention.

Can I rely on this oversight in the reminder as evidence that it was also missing from the NTK? I have at no point named the driver.

What do you think of the long period of time between the NTK issued and the final reminder letter? (6 months). Is it possible that the PPC waited too long after the parking took place to apply for the keeper details? How may I find this out?



I’ve appealed the PPC as well as the IAS. (I unfortunately found out the hard way, and too late that going via the IAS was the wrong thing to do… But it’s done now, so now I must move on). In their response to the appeal (not IAS) they kept talking about a PCN, but there is no mention of an NTK. However the PCN they refer to also fails to mention the means of which the requirement to pay was brought to the drivers attention.



Before the IAS process was completed, they sent another letter increasing the charge. How would a court view this approach to Alternative Dispute Resolution? 



I now have a further letter, the charge increased again, with no explanation for either of the two increases. How would the court view that, given that the maximum sum to be recovered from the keeper should have been set out in the NTK? They are not permitted double recovery. Does that mean they can’t double the charge?



I’d very much appreciate any help at this stage as the clock is ticking and there is little time left before my 14 days for a response is up.

warm regards.

KeithP

Dang_harsh_chin wrote: »

What do you think of the long period of time between the NTK issued and the final reminder letter? (6 months). Is it possible that the PPC waited too long after the parking took place to apply for the keeper details? How may I find this out?

Not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but in order to send the NTK (Notice To Keeper) they clearly must have the keeper's details at that time.

Was there a Notice to Driver affixed to the car at the time of the parking incident?

A NtK can be referred to as a PCN - no problem there.
An NtK and a Notice to Driver (NtD) are two different types of PCN.

Have you read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread yet?

Post #2 of that thread tells you all you need to know about the court process, including how to respond to a LBC.
Are you sure your LBC only allows you fourteen days to respond?
If so, it is either not a LBC or it is a non-compliant LBC.

Post #4 of that NEWBIES thread. will tell you exactly how to deal with debt collector's letters.

What is the name of the PPC?

Dang_harsh_chin

Hi KeithP. Thanks very much for getting back.

No. There was no Notice to Driver affixed to the car at the time of the parking incident. It all happened in the space of three minutes so they had no chance of issuing one.

I've been scanning the Newbies section (thanks for the link), but am still taking much of it in.

I'm not certain whether it's compliant or a non-compliant LBC. However it states clearly on the latest letter that I have 14 days to respond from said date which was last Thursday.

Apologies, but I didn't want to name the PPC directly on here quite yet, simply so they can't discover that I have raised a concern about them, that they can find their name during a quick search either by the forum or by Google. I know they read these forums, so I really don't want to make this any easier for them. However, the clue is in my name which is an anagram.

Umkomaas

You might notice that 99% of threads here have the PPC identified by name. It helps us to quickly advise on which direction the case is likely to proceed, whether it's a PPC that operates with smoke and mirrors in regard to issuing documents with misleading headings, whether solicitor letterheads are being used by debt recovery companies also misleadingly suggesting the letter is one before court action.

Providing that your thread doesn't reveal the identity of the driver, your case isn't going to be affected by naming the PPC. It's far too early in the morning for me to be playing 'solve the anagram'.

Dang_harsh_chin

I'm sorry. Point taken and I apologise.

Eur@ Parking Services Ltd.

Umkomaas

Dang_harsh_chin wrote: »

I'm sorry. Point taken and I apologise.

Eur@ Parking Services Ltd.

Even with the answer, I still can't solve the anagram! :rotfl:

https://padi.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203618171-Euro-Parking-Services-Ltd

Have had a run at a number of court claims, although seem to have slowed this year.

http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Euro_Parking_Services.html

Any formal LBC must follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Recovery (PAP), so you need to check yours carefully against the PAP to check if it fully complies (almost certainly it won't), and respond robustly. There's an example response in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, written by practising solicitor Loadsofchildren123, but it does need to be edited before sending to reflect the changes that PAP brought in.

Ask for every bit of information to which you are entitled under PAP, they have no excuse for not providing it. The PAP requires that the PPC gives you 30 days to respond, so the LBC, providing just 14 days, appears not to be one that meets the new requirements - and may be just an attempt at exerting more pressure, rather than one with real intent behind it - time will tell.

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

In addition you could drop them a SAR-bomb to give them more work to do and to show that you're not going to be low-hanging fruit that they can intimidate into cowing and supinely paying them to leave you alone.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5849784/june-2018-start-of-the-new-ppc-and-dvla-fightback-gdpr-related

You then need to see how the PPC reacts and what next move they make. There's little else you can do - if they're going to issue a claim, then deal with that (with help from here) when it comes. The NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 takes you right through the whole court process, from your current (possible) LBC right through to the actual hearing.

Lots to read and learn I'm afraid, but it will stand you in better stead to fight this successfully.

Dang_harsh_chin

'Even with the answer, I still can't solve the anagram!'

'Dang harsh chin' is an anagram of 'Harchand Singh'

[Deleted User]

Have had a run at a number of court claims, although seem to have slowed this year

An obvious point, but many of these are "long tail" with the hearing being perhaps 2 or more years after the date tickets were issued.

Thus, whilst hearing numbers provide some indication they may spot quite late changes in strategy to pursue more cases to court.

This is not to say that the risk isn't lower than with other PPCs (it may be) i just want to ensure the numbers are interpreted correctly.

Dang_harsh_chin

Thanks Umkomaas for the reply and the links.

Le_Kirk

Dang_harsh_chin wrote: »

'Dang harsh chin' is an anagram of ........

You've gone from trying to hide the PPC's and driver's/RK's name to giving it away - if your anagram solution is correct!

Umkomaas

Le_Kirk wrote: »

You've gone from trying to hide the PPC's and driver's/RK's name to giving it away - if your anagram solution is correct!

That's the name of the PPC owner!