Simplifying a Letter of Claim response

Coupon-mad

Very good.  In further exchanges you may like to suggest that in future, the Facilities Team consult their Law Faculty, if they have one, before signing a contract that 'allows the tail to wag the dog', such that the principal is allowing their notorious agents carte blanche to sue anyone IPSERV choose.  It is an astonishing omission in the tendering process and an abject failure to staff and students and their families, not to insist on a clear and well publicised route to cancellation by the Uni themselves. 

Point out that signing a contract where their hands are tied behind their back stopping them from being able to intervene for genuine patrons, staff, students, taxis, delivery vehicles and even disabled visitors, puts them in a precarious position.  Not only does it leave a very bad taste in the mouth for victims of this regime who are having to fight court claims or pay an extortionate sum, it leaves the Uni jointly and severally liable in cases where the PCN is clearly unfair, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 'grey list of unfair terms' and where (as the Uni have admitted by email) the charge is excessive and therefore fails to match the construction and commercial justification that saved the £85 parking charge in the leading Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.  Far from legitimising all private parking charges, that 2015 case in fact sets a benchmark that IPSERV woefully fail to meet in every respect, from signage terms to legitimate interest, and similar BW Legal exaggerated claims for parking firms are being struck out by Judges up and down the Country.

Green_Eye

Coupon-mad said:

Very good.  In further exchanges you may like to suggest that in future, the Facilities Team consult their Law Faculty, if they have one, before signing a contract that 'allows the tail to wag the dog', such that the principal is allowing their notorious agents carte blanche to sue anyone IPSERV choose.  It is an astonishing omission in the tendering process and an abject failure to staff and students and their families, not to insist on a clear and well publicised route to cancellation by the Uni themselves. 

Point out that signing a contract where their hands are tied behind their back stopping them from being able to intervene for genuine patrons, staff, students, taxis, delivery vehicles and even disabled visitors, puts them in a precarious position.  Not only does it leave a very bad taste in the mouth for victims of this regime who are having to fight court claims or pay an extortionate sum, it leaves the Uni jointly and severally liable in cases where the PCN is clearly unfair, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 'grey list of unfair terms' and where (as the Uni have admitted by email) the charge is excessive and therefore fails to match the construction and commercial justification that saved the £85 parking charge in the leading Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.  Far from legitimising all private parking charges, that 2015 case in fact sets a benchmark that IPSERV woefully fail to meet in every respect, from signage terms to legitimate interest, and similar BW Legal exaggerated claims for parking firms are being struck out by Judges up and down the Country.

I indeed will quote the above as its put more eloquently than I could even imagine. Brilliant. Thanks so much for this, almost looking forward to going to court now, hope the judge uses common sense. 

Umkomaas

I don't think I've ever seen an IPSERV case get to court.  BWL use the court process to exert increasing pressure on people to pay, but often discontinue just short of the finish line. The problem is that you have to jump every hurdle they put in your way, or, once the claim has been lodged, a default judgment is on the way unless you go through each stage of defending it. 

Did you know that IPSERV is a commercial arm of Ipswich Borough Council?  It may be (conjecture on my part) the BC won't want their name attached to a court case?

But no room for complacency.  

Green_Eye

Umkomaas said:

I don't think I've ever seen an IPSERV case get to court.  BWL use the court process to exert increasing pressure on people to pay, but often discontinue just short of the finish line. The problem is that you have to jump every hurdle they put in your way, or, once the claim has been lodged, a default judgment is on the way unless you go through each stage of defending it. 

Did you know that IPSERV is a commercial arm of Ipswich Borough Council?  It may be (conjecture on my part) the BC won't want their name attached to a court case?

But no room for complacency.  

I hope I have done everything I've needed to this far. My only dealings with bwl are that of telling them I've got their letter of claim (didn't respond to any of their forms) and to tell them repeatedly that I have 30 days under the PAP, which they ignored by first saying 14 days and then secondly 16 days. I guess they total 30..... 

When I get the SAR through the post what are the key things I'm looking for? I've downloaded CM defence (beavis) and will use my weekend changing the parts on red to my own. 

nosferatu1001

Did you also instruct them to cease processing for 30 days while you seek debt advice?

Key things - anything that assists. Hard to know until you see it. Obvious woul dbe if they allege X but their photos show Y, thats a problem for them..

Green_Eye

Yes, I did, 3 times and this was their response

Good Morning

 

Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

 

Please be advised we are not required to place an Account, related to Parking contraventions, on hold for 30 days. We have placed the Account on a 14 day hold as previously stated.

 

Please note that we are acting on Our Client’s instructions to recover the above balance which remains due and owed by yourself.

 

Information about the right to restrict processing is available on the Information Commissioner’s Office website xxx. The right to restrict processing only applies in certain limited circumstances. We are not of the view that the right to restrict processing is applicable in this case. Your data is processed for the lawful purposes set out in the Privacy Notice, a copy of which can be found at xxx Whilst we acknowledge you will be making a request for information with Our Client it is important to note that this does not affect the validity of Our Client’s Claim meaning that Our Client has an overriding legitimate interest to recover the sums due to them.

 

As such, your account will not be suspended from further collections activity unless we are instructed to do so by Our Client. Please contact us to reach a suitable resolution.

 

We trust this is satisfactory and clarifies our position. Should you be dissatisfied with our response you may raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

 

Should you have any queries please contact our office on ‪0113 487 0432‬, or alternatively sign in or register on our Online Customer Portal at xxx

D_P_Dance

I very much doubt if this is.  IMO  they would be foolish to ignore your threat

KeithP

Green_Eye said:

"Please be advised we are not required to place an Account, related to Parking contraventions, on hold for 30 days".

Yes they are.

Please read paragraph 4.2 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims - https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf.
It states:

4.2 If the debtor indicates that they are seeking debt advice, the creditor must allow the debtor a reasonable period for the advice to be obtained. In any event, the creditor should not start court proceedings less than 30 days from receipt of the completed Reply Form or 30 days from the creditor providing any documents requested by the debtor, whichever is the later.  

nosferatu1001

Hence why its key that you ocnfirm you used the precise terms, and you then referred them to the PAP. 

Green_Eye

nosferatu1001 said:

Hence why its key that you ocnfirm you used the precise terms, and you then referred them to the PAP. 

This was my first email to them beginning of Feb 

To whom it may concern

I deny any debt to Ipserv due to already confirming purchase of parking ticket.

I am seeking debt advise and I require you to halt the processing of my data for a minimum of 30 days

They then replied

Good Afternoon

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

Please be advised that you have previously appealed this matter directly to Our Client.

Our Client rejected your appeal and sent you an appeal rejection letter. This letter outlined reasons for the rejection and detailed how you should proceed if you wished to appeal this matter further. This must have been done within a set timeframe, specified in the aforementioned letter.

As no further appeal was forthcoming (THIS IS A LIE) , your recourse for appeal has now expired and the full Balance is due and owing.

To which I wrote

Good afternoon

I have today received your letter of claim.

This is the 3rd time I'm having to sending this to you, any further correspondence prior to the 30 day limit will be deemed as harassment.

I deny the debt to Ipserv and as per the pre action protocol, you are instructed to cease proceedings for at least 30 days whilst I seek debt advice.

They advised:
Good Morning
 
Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.
 
We will put the matter on hold for 14 days, whilst you seek debt advice.

I returned with:
Again, no. You have been instructed to halt all proceedings for a minimum of 30 days, not 14. I have sent a SAR to Ipserv for which there is a 30 day minimum requirement. 

They said :

Good Morning

Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

Please be advised we are not required to place an Account, related to Parking contraventions, on hold for 30 days. We have placed the Account on a 14 day hold as previously stated.

Please note that we are acting on Our Client’s instructions to recover the above balance which remains due and owed by yourself.

I replied :

Hello, 

Just to confirm, are you admitting that you have no interest in the Pre Action Protocol advice for Debt collecting? If you are admitting this, are you happy that your behaviour be classed as unreasonable?

To which they said:-
Good Morning

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

Please be advised, we are prepared to put the matter on hold for a 16 days.

My reply was:

 Thank you for the email. 

I will be using these discussions as evidence of you not following the set out protocol for allowing time to seek debt advice. A complaint will be made as an when necessary. 

This is there last reply to which I didn't respond 

Good Afternoon

 

Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

 

We can confirm that we have allowed sufficient time in line with the pre-action protocal, we apologise whould you feel dissatisfied with our response and process.

 

Please note that the is on hold until the 25 March 2020.