CEL Letter before action

kevalicat

Many thanks Coupon-mad. Can I quote this to them word for word ? 

Coupon-mad

Certainly - except change my commentary at the start!

kevalicat

Hi Coupon-mad and all. Many thanks for your help here, especially the last paragraphs from you Coupon-mad. I fired that off to dcbl and had the usual reply that they aren't too fussed and it will continue. Today I had an email from BPA who initially said they saw no breach of code. They clearly have followed up with CEL and confirmed today ' Civil Enforcement Limited have advised that given the potential confusion the initial auto generated response may have caused they have instructed DCBL to close and return the parking charge notice and they have cancelled the charge as a gesture of goodwill.'  

BPA and CEL have ignored the wording on the appeal since 2019, so I am sure the last message sent is what has focused them both. Many thanks again. 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

I'm sure they are happy as pigs in mud.

Ask them if their supervising solicitor hasn't heard of the contra proferentem rule, or do they need retraining in the Consumer Rights Act 2015?

Further, the Government has banned the false 'debt recovery costs' noting that these were never actually incurred because the 'private parking DRAs' were operating free of charge for the parking industry, until the 'fixed late fee' scam was stopped this February.

In his Ministerial Foreword, DLUHC's Neil O'Brien talks of "aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists":  
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

Under 'Escalation of costs' the statutory Code states: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."

Whilst the Code of Practice is not retrospective, there cannot be a clearer steer for the courts than the fact that the DLUHC has declared the false added fixed fees to have been "designed to extort money from motorists".

Moreover, it is my position that any parking roboclaim legal firm which now issues a claim enhanced by the false 'debt recovery' costs - despite knowing that the DLUHC has banned them and declared this element to be 'extortion' - cannot possibly be acting in good faith.

As such, if you do now proceed to issue a claim enhanced by the (known to be false) £60 or £70 'fees', I will report you to the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority for breach of the STaRs: failing to act with 'honesty & integrity' or in a way which upholds public trust and confidence:

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/

Be on notice that I will counterclaim for a three figure sum  for damages for distress caused by harassment and data abuse, should your clients now try a claim.

Yay!  

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST, partly due to the above suggested wording!

kevalicat

I think it's solely due to the wording Coupon-mad. BPA and CEL were truly not interested before that landed.