Armtrac - Final letter before court action

nosferatu1001

You were given a search for a repsonse to a LBC

You gave an appeal. its obviously an appeal. You also have the BLINDINGLY obvious NEWBIES thread which ALSO talks about repsonses to LBc being differnent to an appeal

So hmmm, why would you want us to spend our time telling you to do somehting, for you ot ignore that, and have to be corrected, and then be snarky about it?

So you could do some work yourself, folllow the searches youve been given, or just randomly copy and paste with no thought. Id suggest one is likely to get a better response than the other.

If you dont want to help yourself, why should you expect us to?

Pirelli1

nosferatu1001 - Wow. I think you need to take a look at yourself for a second.


I responded to Coupon-mad asking whether I should email Armtrac to ask for details, since I don't actually know what the letter is about at this stage. Cannot view evidence i.e. have nothing to go on. You chime in with -

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

What does your search as youve been told to do suggest you should do? That would be an obvious first step. Review with al info rather than guessing...

I didn't say I wasn't going to conduct the search, I was just asking whether it would be worthwhile actually getting some facts.


Then, when already having been told that what I've suggested isn't correct by Coupon-mad, you add -

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Indeed, that suggests a blind copy and paste, not reading and understanding whats needed at this point.

Pretty much the same as saying 'Yep, he's wrong isn't he?!'

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

So hmmm, why would you want us to spend our time telling you to do somehting, for you ot ignore that, and have to be corrected, and then be snarky about it?

Why would you hang around on a forum just to criticise people who know less than you? Apart from when it comes to using a keyboard of course. Imbecile.
I have not expected anyone to help me. I'm looking for some guidance as it seems there's an incredible amount of knowledge here.


Jesus, this is why I hate forums.

nosferatu1001

Bye then

Pirelli1

So I emailed Armtrac yesterday to ask what the letter was in relation to and they've replied today with photos of windscreen ticket on the vehicle that I am the keeper of, as well as many irrelevant pictures of the outside of the vehicle, which I find bizarre - 14 in total.

beamerguy

Pirelli1 wrote: »

So I emailed Armtrac yesterday to ask what the letter was in relation to and they've replied today with photos of windscreen ticket on the vehicle that I am the keeper of, as well as many irrelevant pictures of the outside of the vehicle, which I find bizarre - 14 in total.

They are bizarre ...... they are called Armtrac ?

What pictures do you have of the area, the signs etc

Pirelli1

There are no signs shown in any of the pictures. Yep, letter says KBT Cornwall t/a Armtrac Security Services.

beamerguy

Pirelli1 wrote: »

There are no signs shown in any of the pictures. Yep, letter says KBT Cornwall t/a Armtrac Security Services.

can you get pictures of the signs and where they are located

Pirelli1

There's some really blurred images of signs on Google street view, but I don't live local so can't pop down and get any. Can't make out any of the text within the signs on street view.

Pirelli1

So I've read through the NEWBIES thread again, and before I put pen to paper (so to speak - it'll be an email...) Could I have any thoughts on the following - I am referring to the fake LBCC (invoice for payment) as the NTK as it effectively is, but doesn't contain everything it should do, so isn't compliant anyway.

Dear Sir,

Re : Your Letter Before Action dated 00/00/00

I have received your letter before claim date, I deny any debt to Armtrac in relation to Parking Charge Notice………

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds :


This LBCC, which is in fact an invoice for payment, could be classed as the NTK as this is the first correspondence or notification I have received in relation to this as the Registered Keeper, however -

This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the lack of any dates contained within and the wording used.
Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. Armtrac have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-
’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’
The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK (invoice for payment) was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period…is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’
This NTK (invoice for payment) sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived some 68 days after the alleged event, so has not been actually delivered and deemed ‘served’ or given, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b). This means that Armtrac have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.
So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual is.

Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide any photographic evidence.

This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct. As you must know, the Practice Direction binds 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.

Nobody is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. I therefore insist that you cease contacting me with regards to this ‘invoice for payment’, which is clearly worded in an effort to intimidate and mislead the recipient into thinking that they are to be issued with court documents after 14 days if no payment is made.


Your faithfully

Pirelli1

So even though it seems that if you don't accept the inevitable kicking dished out by the pedants that reside in the dark depths of this forum without calling them out on it you just get ignored, some information that may help others in a similar situation as me -
I sent an information request to the DVLA, and received a response yesterday, with a redacted copy of the submission sent through by Armtrac. The expiry date of their data protection registration is almost 1 month prior to the date that they obtained and processed my data. Having been on to the Information Commissioner's Office and run through their handy 'Registration self-assessment' following a quick live chat session with an agent, it seems that they should in fact be paying a fee to the ICO.
I'll probably contact the DVLA again to enquire as to why they are giving information to organisations who have clearly not paid the appropriate fees (as it's evident from the form that they ask the organisation to fill out)
I'll probably include the DVLA's response in a response to whatever drivel Armtrac come back with in response to the above.