PCN escalated to Court proceedings **EDIT - I WON**

nosferatu1001

Respond to the court, cc'ing in BW Legal , pointing out that then!
Also point out that they have "erroneously" one must assume, failed to inform the court that PPLegal are not a company, but a mere trading style, of a real company..... that shares directors with Claimant. It is difficult to believe this is a mere mistake. 

Coupon-mad

They are desperate.  I say no need to respond.  Courts don't like email tennis.

Even if the Judge doesn't want to see the PP Legal letter, you can still report them to Trading Standards and the FCA for using a misleading name.  How could a consumer could be expected to know that:

'BW Legal' is a real solicitor,

yet

'PPLegal' is a debt collector firm

D_P_Dance

Why wait for a judge t complain to Trading Standards, do so yourself.  

Littlewadie

PP Legal will not respond to any questions or reply to any more correspondence from myself. What a shame!

This is for anyone interested in what they said.

We write further to your email of 15 June 2020.

 

Your above-referenced email does not provide any further information and/or evidence which requires comment and we do not intend to engage in further protracted and unproductive correspondence, save as to comment as follows.

 

Our purpose in writing at this time is to clarify how the Legal Services Act 2007 apply in this situation and to clear up any misconceptions you may have. Please note, following this response we will not provide any further correspondence in this matter other than where we are legislatively obligated to do so and in the defence of any legal claims. All further correspondence from yourself will be retained in accordance with our Privacy Policy, a copy of which can be found at https://www.pplegal.co.uk/privacy-policy.

 

All allegations of our representing ourselves as Regulated by a Regulatory Body as alleged or otherwise are denied. Neither our correspondence and/or company information suggest and/or state that we are registered with a Regulatory Body nor that we are required to be so. Please note, you are at liberty to lodge a complaint with any Regulatory Body which you deem fit, however, as we are not required to belong to any Regulator these complaints will be redundant.

 

Our involvement in this matter is as previously set out, to correspond with Debtor’s to attempt to settle outstanding Parking Charge Notices on behalf of Premier Park Ltd. Should settlement of a Parking Charge Notice not be made following our correspondence cycle, we are then instructed to refer unpaid Cases to Premier Park Ltd.’s Solicitors. We accordingly, act as an agent of Premier Park Ltd in the transfer of this data pursuant to our Data Sharing Agreement. Premier Park Ltd are the party who instruct their Solicitors and we facilitate the transfer of Parking Charge Notice files which remain outstanding. This instruction on behalf of Premier Park Ltd is reasonable and does not constitute a breach of a Data Subject’s rights. For further information on how Premier Park Ltd process and manage Personal Data together with the lawful purpose for their doing so please consult Premier Park Ltd.’s Privacy Policy which can be found at http://www.premierpark.co.uk/privacy-policy.  

 

The use of ‘Legal’ in our trading name is neither illegal and/or in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007. As set out previously, we do not conduct any protected works pursuant to the Legal Services Act 2007 and are therefore not obligated to be registered with the relevant regulatory bodies. We again refer you to our previous correspondence which explicitly and immediately sets out our role in these matters in stating that “Payment of the outstanding balance is required within fourteen days of this correspondence, failing which, the above referenced Parking Charge Notice will be referred to Premier Park Ltd.’s Solicitors who are instructed to commence litigation for recovery of the outstanding monies forthwith”.

 

We recommend that you seek comprehensive independent legal advice in this matter.

 

We thank you for contacting us in this matter.

Coupon-mad

All allegations of our representing ourselves as Regulated by a Regulatory Body as alleged or otherwise are denied. Neither our correspondence and/or company information suggest and/or state that we are registered with a Regulatory Body nor that we are required to be so. Please note, you are at liberty to lodge a complaint with any Regulatory Body which you deem fit, however, as we are not required to belong to any Regulator these complaints will be redundant.
...
The use of ‘Legal’ in our trading name is neither illegal and/or in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007. As set out previously, we do not conduct any protected works pursuant to the Legal Services Act 2007 and are therefore not obligated to be registered with the relevant regulatory bodies. 

  Astonishing.

D_P_Dance

All allegations of our representing ourselves as Regulated by a Regulatory Body as alleged or otherwise are denied

Would someone translate this for me please!

Coupon-mad

They are saying, in effect:
''You've alleged that we must comply with the FCA rules but we are not in the FCA, nor are we governed by any regulatory body, so any complaints you make (anywhere) will be redundant''.

P.S.  Happy 80th birthday Mr Dance !    

D_P_Dance

Is it worth a complaint to Trading Standards I wonder.

Littlewadie

So just to update everyone, this is what has happened.
BW have emailed the court asking that all correspondence to do with PP legal be ignored and struck out of my evidence.
So I did not respond to this, to the court or BW, as I wanting to wait and see what the court would respond with.
I first got a letter from the court giving me my court date in August, unfortunately it is a telephone hearing, so I won't get my face to face, anyway, I will deal with this as it comes.
I then get a second letter yesterday from the court, stating that my additional evidence will be considered at the hearing, so yay!
I have now emailed BW, giving them a nice PDF with all the relevant emails & correspondence associated with PP Legal, so they can include it in their electronic bundle required to send to the court, with a nice little 'ha up yours' smile on my face.

nosferatu1001

What reason did they give to exclude it?