Is this a real letter before claim?

Redx

seems you have done all you need to do

as for the defence , its based on legal arguments , not your story, leave that amnesia/alzheimers part until the WS in a few months time

usually a defence can start with the concise defence by member bargepole , then add to it

Lily091213

@redx and @beamerguy
The SAR request I emailed had a 30 day deadline I believe, and the extension Gladstones came back with was until September 15th. What happens if I don't get the SAR response before the 15th? What further actions do I need to do before the 15th?

Redx

at 31 days you email the PPC a reminder with a 7 day deadline to reply with the SAR details , otherwise you complain to the ICO, by contacting them


the 15th is the solicitor LoC deadline , nothing to do with the SAR

Lily091213

So, by the 15th, the Gladstones letter says I need to pay or reply. Obviously, I'm choosing the reply option. I'm sorry to ask, I know you must get the same question a lot but I've looked through the Newbies thread and can't see what sort of reply I should send them.

I have searched the forum for other Gladstone and UKCPM cases and found a lot of people sending the below wording (which I'll tweak for myself and also add in a request for a breakdown of £60 charge) but I'm not sure if it's still up to date. I found them in posts from 2018.

Is this still the correct one to send now? Is there any benefit in waiting until the 15th or just send it sooner?


Thank you

"To whom it may concern,

I have received your Letter Before Claim and would like to respond.

Since receiving the letter, I have tried to contact your client (UK Car Park management Limited), however have yet to receive a response. Therefore I come back to your letter which contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide the photographic evidence. It does not even say what the cause of action is. Nor does it contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.

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 clearly 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.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. Therefore 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 car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

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), 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. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information, yet your client has yet to provide it.

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.

Regards,"

Lily091213

Is that the right letter to send now?

waamo

Looks good.

Coupon-mad

I think it is awful. I wish people would stop trying to use old stuff.

It is that 2017 ancient template that NO-ONE recommends and is not linked in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, which says NOT to send some rambling template.

The_Deep

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think it is awful. I wish people would stop trying to use old stuff.

It is that 2017 ancient template that NO-ONE recommends and is not linked in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, which says NOT to send some rambling template.

How about pointing OP to a later version CM! Your aversion to providing links, although well intentioned, is, I am sure, causing many punters to throw in the towel and feed the scammers.

OP, as nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Umkomaas

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.

Regards,"

For a response to an organisation trying to sue you through the courts in an attempt to take hundreds of pounds from you, do you not think it would be much more business like if, instead of 'Regards', your letter should be completed with 'Lots of love and kisses'? :cool:

Dear Sirs

Yours faithfully

Lily091213

Thank you for all the comments.

I haven't sent any letter yet, other than those I mentioned in my bullet point post.

I am a bit confused because I see so many people sending out the long letter I posted, and had comments back saying looks good, but apparently it's old. I genuinely did look at the Newbies thread as well and honestly couldn't find what I need to send now.

I'm sorry if I'm being thick but could anyone point me in the right direction of what I should do next?

I THINK I should wait, let the September deadline expire, wait for a proper claim to be posted to me and then follow these instructions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

But I'm not 100% sure if that link is in response to the Letter Before Claim I've received (so needs to be done before September) or whether it should be in response to another letter I'll receive in future.