LBC from Gladstones/PS24

unapologicallyme

Coupon-mad said:

I'd get rid of this because it might suit you to play email tennis for a while:

"This is the last time we will respond outside of the court process."

And were you unaware that the New Code of Practice is temporarily withdrawn? It's all over the forum, has bern since the start of June.  Google it!

Thanks!

Which new code of practice is that? I hadn’t seen anything but I was scanning through them so may have missed it read a good 50/60 threads 

Fruitcake

THE new parking code of practice that will be supporting the 2019 Parking Bill and replacing all others.

This is one of the problems we have been having. The whole thing has been so poorly "advertised" that the vast majority of motorists no nothing about it, despite about 9 million PCNs being issued every year. 
There was a public consultation about the CoP and the number of replies was only in the hundreds.

We need people to spread the word and have their say when the next public consultation takes place sometime this year, although the government has some other trivial matter on its mind at the moment.

unapologicallyme

Fruitcake said:

THE new parking code of practice that will be supporting the 2019 Parking Bill and replacing all others.

This is one of the problems we have been having. The whole thing has been so poorly "advertised" that the vast majority of motorists no nothing about it, despite about 9 million PCNs being issued every year. 
There was a public consultation about the CoP and the number of replies was only in the hundreds.

We need people to spread the word and have their say when the next public consultation takes place sometime this year, although the government has some other trivial matter on its mind at the moment.

Thanks fruitcake! So would that make half of my reply irrelevant then? 

It’s crazy the amount of information out there that we don’t know about unless we actually look for it - very overwhelming haha, we’re very lucky to have this forum to help that’s for sure

Le_Kirk

You can leave it in but just mention it has been temporarily withdrawn, even though the words of the MP - Neill O'Brien - are still relevant and it is the intention of the Government to stop the false debt recovery charges.

unapologicallyme

Le_Kirk said:

You can leave it in but just mention it has been temporarily withdrawn, even though the words of the MP - Neill O'Brien - are still relevant and it is the intention of the Government to stop the false debt recovery charges.

Thank you! I have tweaked my reply and reposted below. I have put the changes in bold to make it an easier to read but when I send I’ll remove the formatting.

Gladstones Solicitors

Ref quote : XXXX

I have sent your client a SAR and I am also seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

I have made a complaint to the BPA regarding your clients breaches of the Code of Practice:

a) alleged ‘ghost ticketing’ as your client failed to provide evidence of the windscreen PCN in the SAR.

b) the only notice received was the “notice to keeper” which demanded £78 then £130, whereas the signs in the car park say £30 rising to £60 and £135.

Also update your system with the following address for service and delete any other addresses on your system

XXXX

Regarding the "Estimated Fixed Solicitor's Costs" 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.

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. I am aware that this has been temporarily withdrawn since June 2022, however it is still relevant.

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 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/

Yours Faithfully

XXXX

Coupon-mad

That'll do.

unapologicallyme

Coupon-mad said:

That'll do.

Thanks Coupon!

Is it best to email it or use the letter before claim reply form? Or both?

Coupon-mad

The NEWBIES thread tells everyone NOT to use the reply forms, largely because some newbies would start filling in the income & expenditure pages.

Email it.

unapologicallyme

Coupon-mad said:

The NEWBIES thread tells everyone NOT to use the reply forms, largely because some newbies would start filling in the income & expenditure pages.

Email it.

Thanks coupon, and thanks again for all of the advice!

I’ll update the thread with any developments  

unapologicallyme

Received the below response from BPA today - they seem to think their Code hasn’t been breached!

Really unsure on where to go from here

Should I go back to PS24 and ask for proof of the NTD and see what they say?

I’m at a loss because IF the driver received that PCN and IF they were at fault (they can’t remember as was so long ago) then they probably would have just paid the £30. It’s crazy that these companies get away with scamming people.