Letter of Claim process

Bachelorplace

I am looking for POST 2 in the Newbies forum. I cannot see it but I am still looking



I must say how absolutely delighted I am that you have been here to help and I hope to help others myself.



I have received a LOC for £733 original claim £560. It is from the usual people sometimes refered to as clowns herein.



I assume that aswell as complaining to the retailer as I have read here, and is relevant in this case that I need to respond to this as it states:


"If payment or a response is not received before 7 Jan we will be instructed to issue a claim against you in the county court without further notice.



Prior to my checking in with you might you send me a Thread 2 direct link?

Fruitcake

The NEWBIES is just underneath where you clicked on the button. Post numbers are in the top right hand corner. My post here is number # 2
You original post is number # 1

Scroll down the NEWBIES until you find post # 2, then follow the step by step guide to court you will find there.

Bachelorplace

Thanks very much



Here is what I have done:


1 - Request of SAR from parking company
2 - Notified B()%W about above request
3 - Draughted a letter of unfair and unclear contract terms complaint
4 - Sent a copy of the letter to the cinema regional head office.



Post that letter below?

Fruitcake

If the scammers don't already know the identity of the driver, delete the words in brackets and some of the words before it from your post above! Only ever refer to The Drive or The Keeper, who are two different people.
Parking scammers read these fora.

Send the letter of complain ASAP, but don't reveal the driver's identity in case they pass it on to the scammers.

Please also complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

Bachelorplace

In the complaint to the retailer, I can state that it is confidential and they are not permitted to share my data?


Will that work?


I have no evidence yet of anything - so maybe I should wait until I receive evidence before complaining to the retailer?


I will check wording and post the SAR and Acknowledgement today it is generic.

Bachelorplace

I have a first reply from the retailer stating they have no control over the car park rules and regulations and to complain to the parking company! I will send a more robust complaint including some of the intervention cases.

The_Deep

That is a lot of money. How many alleged BoCs do they allege you committed? Add complain on Facebook about the retailer to your list, and complain to your MP.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Bachelorplace

Ok here is complaint letters: I owe you dinner so far already.



<div> retailer



Adress
Ref PCN

Dear Mr Name


This letter is confidential and you may refer back to me individually of course, call me or even email me on the address below, but please do not process my data to any third party other than to quote the name and the above PCN number, no further details of the case or this letter should be shared without my prior written consent.

The grounds for this complaint are to do with the parking system at Brand Adress its misleading contract and the repute of the companies involved. I deny liability for any contractual agreement.

I am horrorstruck that I have recently been subjected to misleading legal and threatening letters from scammer 1 and now subsequently scammer 2 I will be complaining to my MP.

Having researched the companies and your car park, it appears that individuals have to pay to park for Retailer when visiting to watch a film. I was not aware of this, as it is not made clear.

I do not recall receiving a PCN on my vehicle, nor any further contact from either Scammer 1 or Scammer 2, before this week being issued a Letter Before Action.

I am assuming, after careful consideration, I am accused of breach of contract on private land, that which you advertise as brand's parking.












In the first instance I made contact with Brand Head Office and was informed by Name that

(i) The General Manager’s name is private and they would not share it so I could address my complaint.

I found your details listed publicly on Linked In and was also provided your name by a different customer service agent when I called on the phone.

(ii) Brand has no control over rules and regulations of car parks they advertise.

Firstly there are no signs up that state you as a company are not responsible for rules and regulations of the car park but there are Logo printed signs directing drivers to the car park implying that it is yours.


In a recent letter before action from Scammer 2 I am subjected to a bill of £733.87, which I assume is a fine for the above-alleged breach of contract. Should I not respond, court action will be taken without further notice. I have duly therefore requested a subject to access request with Scammer 1, and also send notification of this to Scammer 2

Why Brand should be concerned is clear. In a parliamentary house of commons debate scammer 2 are mentioned by name in relation to being a questionable firm of solicitors whose predatory practices have prompted further parking bill amendments. It is stated in the public broadcast that scammer 2 l may not be acting fairly, transparently or within the confines of the code of practice or law. I am stunned that Brand want to be seen to be in connection to this company and its practices.

I suffer from severe GAD and having read these reports and watched the well-published debates about the operation of these two companies, I have chosen for now to not enter into correspondence with them. I have however been feeling very much worse as a result of receiving correspondence.

What is also clear, if there is a breach of contract, is that a fair system of implementation or enforcement operation is not in place, nor is there sufficient Brand branded information or reminders inside or outside the venue that patrons are required to pay for parking in the first place. Equally it seems there are no concessions in place for customers of Brand

As a duty of care, these I suspect are not facts you or head office wish to be published online, discussed through a court, or appear in the local or national papers. Scammer 2 has also appeared on a Channel 5 programme, I suspect Brand would not wish to appear on that show either.

Please would you make contact with Scammer 1 and instruct them to waive the above accusation and any subsequent legal action with their solicitors.

Whilst you may claim not have control over the actual land, I suspect you and the other retailers do and should have influence on matters which can and will affect your reputation or a customer experience.

It is not normal practice for an advertised car park for a cinema to charge customers in Town. In my experience it is also not arguably normal practice to pay a fee to park a car when watching a film at any Brand that is not part of a larger shopping center with barrier parking access.







It is therefore fair to assume that a barrier system is the most legitimate and courteous method of ensuring customers are not mislead as I have been, as to to the purpose of your car park.

In the past 10 years I have spent over £6000.00 with the Brand brand watching my favorite movies week after week. I regard brand as being a company that cares for its customers and would not want to be seen as in cohorts with well-known debt collection intimidators with particularly bad reputations.

Whilst I vigorously disagree with the principal that brand does not offer parking concessions at this location, I still respect the company. However naturally if I am forced to do so, I will be publishing my experience and sending press releases to the local and national press. In the event of court action, after parking in what I thought was “brands car park”, £733.87 is an expensive cinema ticket.

Naturally should I receive information that indicates I was at the location, I would also be happy to provide you with a bank statement confirmation of transaction.

As a goodwill gesture and in the interests of fairness and caring about your customers I look forward to receiving contact from you to confirm that the original PCN and any subsequent additions have been cancelled. There have been over 100 other retailer cases where despite not “being in control” of the private parking area or land they have intervened and the claims against the customer have been waived.

In the meantime I have also complained to my MP and have recommended a revision to private land company car park policy including amendments to address and the practices of Scammer 2 and 1


Name






MP Letter: to follow

Bachelorplace

MP Address


I write regarding the above PCN issued wish to complain about the misleading and unfair contract systems in place at Location


I am horrorstruck that I have recently been subjected to misleading legal and threatening letters from Scammers


Having researched the companies and the car park, it appears that one has to pay to park for retailer when visiting to watch a film. I was not aware of this, as it is not made clear.

I do not recall receiving a PCN on my vehicle, nor any further contact from either scammersl, before this week being issued a Letter Before Action.

I am assuming, after careful consideration, I am accused of breach of contract on private land, that which is advertised as brand parking.

In a recent letter before action from scammerl I am subjected to a bill of £733.87, which I assume is a fine for the above-alleged breach of contract. Should I not respond, court action will be taken without further notice. I have duly therefore requested a subject to access request with scammer, and also send notification of this to scammer 2

In a parliamentary house of commons debate scammer are mentioned by name in relation to being a questionable firm of solicitors whose practices have prompted further parking bill amendments. It is stated in the public broadcast that scammer may not be acting fairly, transparently or within the confines of the code of practice or law. I am stunned that brand would be in connection to this company and its practices, I also feel there should be no place for these companies to operate or intimidate in the town area.















I suffer from severe GAD and having read these reports and watched the well-published debates about the operation of these two companies, I have chosen for now to not enter into correspondence with them. I have however been feeling very much worse as a result of receiving such a shocking fine.

What is clear, if there is a breach of contract, is that a fair system of implementation or enforcement operation is not in place, nor is there sufficient b branded information or reminders inside or outside the venue that patrons are required to pay for parking in the first place. Equally it seems there are no concessions in place for customers of brand.


As a measure of brand protection I have asked brand to make contact with scammers and instruct them to waive the above accusation and any subsequent legal action with their solicitors and review their parking policies.

It is not normal practice for an advertised car park for a cinema to charge customers in town. In my experience it is also not arguably normal practice to pay a fee to park a car when watching a film at any brand that is not part of a larger shopping center with barrier parking access.

It is therefore fair to assume that a barrier system is the most legitimate and courteous method of ensuring customers are not mislead as I have been, as to to the purpose of that car park. Otherwise customers like me might assume that like all cinemas, parking for the cinema is free.

Finally the entire debate about private land and parking does seem somewhat of a cash cow for private firms. It may even be argued that the retailers in this area generate revenue from the system, and the enforcers and landowners rely on breaches in order to make money. If I am subjected to court proceedings and a fine of this amount I will be forced to publish the case and make contacts with the local and national press about this experience.

Local firms like brand are by association aiding and abetting these unscrupulous firms into bullying and extortion and I recommend they and the landowner review their policies. They are not good for local businesses and not good for your constituents.

Umkomaas

I would try to make your retailer complaint much shorter. They have a business to run, and I'd hazard they'd put your letter down ('deal with some time never' file) within 3 paragraphs. Get them to take notice, to cause them to lose interest.

MPs are better positioned and used to handling complaints, but even so, the sharper and more focused the letter, hopefully the sharper and more focused the MPs brain will be after reading.

Bachelorplace

hm ok - challenge of brevity on... hmm scratches chin.