New query

Coupon-mad

Wigwamfan said:

Coupon-mad said:

You just respond again, asking anything you want. 

We are telling everyone to send robust responses to LBCs (e.g. as seen on the thread by @homi).

Just FYI, the Newbies section on LBC stage advises a basic response to LBC, not robust response & no example. It also doesn't advise to wait until end of initial deadline to send that LBC response  This might be worth updating to avoid numerous LBC response queries.....

I know, but sadly I can't just freely edit the NEWBIES thread.

Long story but it's a closed thread that I have to specially ask the Forum Team to temporarily open for me, and this little snippet of advice is very new and is a minor thing in the scheme of things. And we are telling people what to do on a case by case basis - this is how we adapt when things change. 

Things change every month here and I edit the NEWBIES thread maybe only twice a year.  A much bigger thing happened in February (the new Code of Practice) and I haven't even written about that in the NEWBIES thread yet, because it's in its implementation phase and moving slowly so it can wait.

The problem with the username was the bracket I typed as part of the sentence, which MSE treated as part of the person's username!   I separated the bracket now from the name...quirky forum...!

Wigwamfan

Coupon-mad said:

Wigwamfan said:

Coupon-mad said:

You just respond again, asking anything you want. 

We are telling everyone to send robust responses to LBCs (e.g. as seen on the thread by @homi).

Just FYI, the Newbies section on LBC stage advises a basic response to LBC, not robust response & no example. It also doesn't advise to wait until end of initial deadline to send that LBC response  This might be worth updating to avoid numerous LBC response queries.....

I know, but sadly I can't just freely edit the NEWBIES thread.

Long story but it's a closed thread that I have to specially ask the Forum Team to temporarily open for me, and this little snippet of advice is very new and is a minor thing in the scheme of things. And we are telling people what to do on a case by case basis - this is how we adapt when things change. 

Things change every month here and I edit the NEWBIES thread maybe only twice a year.  A much bigger thing happened in February (the new Code of Practice) and I haven't even written about that in the NEWBIES thread yet, because it's in its implementation phase and moving slowly so it can wait.

The problem with the username was the bracket I typed as part of the sentence, which MSE treated as part of the person's username!   I separated the bracket now from the name...quirky forum...!

Makes things difficult for you & tedious having to respond case by case but I'm not going to criticise this amazing forum! Keeping me going, that's for sure.

I'm aware of the new CoP. Such an achievement for those involved. Can appreciate the hours of time & hard work that went into that. 

Will endeavour to search effectively before asking any further questions! 

Umkomaas

Will endeavour to search effectively before asking any further questions! 

I'm not sure whether you've seen this before, if not, you might find this helpful. 

HOW TO USE THE MSE SEARCH FUNCTION MOST EFFECTIVELY

Follow the steps in the link below to get the most effective results from the MSE search function. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6289402/weve-updated-the-search-function/p1

Le_Kirk

I think it is because there is a close parenthesis after @homi but they are certainly a contributor.  A little detective work and I found this 26 May at 9:02PM <<<<<LINK for you.

Wigwamfan

Thanks all. Yes, got to grips with search function finally & have now accessed robust LBC response. Will post revised response later.

Off to work on claim form defence as aware that most likely next, regardless of my LBC response (which I am doing purely to demo I have engaged in this ridiculous & tiresome process) 🙄

Wigwamfan

Robust LBC response:


Please thank your client for offering to temporarily remove (for 7 days) the illegal £70 fee added to this claim after my initial complaint to the landowner. This gave me time to revisit the site and review photographs and video footage of the site in 2018 and understand that I must deny the debt as I have sufficient proof that no contract existed between the driver & your client. I suggest therefore that your claimant discontinues the claim now.

I have referred this matter to my MP who has contacted the landowner again on my behalf. The landowner has requested a reasonable amount of time to investigate & respond. I therefore request that you & the claimant at least place the case on further hold until the landowner responds or discontinues the case, to avoid further costs.

Should your client choose to pursue a claim I will rigorously defend with expert assistance. I am an honest, law-abiding intelligent and articulate NHS frontline worker and will be able to defend myself well in small claims court. I have thorough knowledge & understanding of the BPA Approved Operator Code of Practise 2014 (particularly section re signage) and CRA 2015 & can clearly outline how your client contravened the above. I suspect they are already aware of this however as I note they have significantly revised the signage at the site of the alleged contravention since 2018.

Regarding the "Estimated Fixed Solicitor's Costs" in your letter, I'm sure you are more than aware but the max legal costs for a small claim of this size is £50. I'm unsure why it's £80 on the Letter Before Claim you have sent and I see this is a template used hundreds, if not thousands of times recently, so it appears to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to exaggerate the costs in two ways, and thus intimidate and mislead the public into rushing to pay you in fear.

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 new 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 amount to '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)  £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/

Also, your letter does not contain sufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client relies upon. I would hope that your client knows that as of 1st October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims.

In line with both the previously applicable Practice Direction and the current Pre-Action Protocol I am requesting that your client, should they wish to pursue this, provides the below information, as they are required to:

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 vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated

5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.

6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.

7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1

8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed

9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)          

I will also pursue my SAR submitted to your client on May 7th- I have currently placed this on hold while landowner investigates. Incidentally your client incorrectly requested photographic ID in order to process this request.    

I cite the following from PS24uk website:

“"We are an ethical company which has secured us work in the NHS sector and if the land owner wishes for PCNs to be cancelled we would uphold that request."

If I am pursued any further, I will not hesitate to contact the press. Threatening & harassing a frontline NHS worker and discouraging landowners from discontinuing claims against honest & innocent motorists, by levying charges against them, is hardly "ethical" and publicising this could compromise any NHS contracts your client may have secured or wish to secure in the future.

I would prefer to dedicate my time to my job rather than responding to your correspondence. (Perhaps it will be you or your clients or your/their family/friends who then benefit from the NHS service I provide on the trauma wards at one of Manchester's major trauma centres and in asthma research).

I am not anti- parking enforcement. I am an advocate of non- extortionate and fair enforcement, in the event of real & genuine contravention. In this case however there was no real contravention that can be proven. I strongly suggest your client cuts their losses now & discontinues this case to avoid waste of their, my, the landowner's and court time. :

Yours 

Forum members: the part about the trauma wards is not a veiled threat ) 
 

Wigwamfan

* "the claimant" should read "your client"  

Le_Kirk

I have thorough knowledge & understanding of the BPA Approved Operator Code of Practise Practice 2014 (particularly section re signage) 

.........even though you cannot spell it - oops!

Wigwamfan

Le_Kirk said:

I have thorough knowledge & understanding of the BPA Approved Operator Code of Practise Practice 2014 (particularly section re signage) 

.........even though you cannot spell it - oops!

Le_Kirk said:

I have thorough knowledge & understanding of the BPA Approved Operator Code of Practise Practice 2014 (particularly section re signage) 

.........even though you cannot spell it - oops!

oops indeed! Thanks!

Wigwamfan

Grammatical errors will be corrected too btw. Rushing....