Letter of claims

bartos1976

Hello everyone, been a while since I’ve needed to come on the forum. 

Anyway I got a letter of claim a few weeks ago, I followed the advice in the sticky thread by sending them correspondence stating I was seeking debt advice. Anyway since then I’ve had another letter of claim from the same company for a different alleged breach of contract over parking on private land and there’s likely to be more to come

Basically in the past I’ve successfully defended these at POPLA. Anyway I got friendly with a parking attendant there just before COVID hit and he told me the said company didn’t pursue these through courts ever so I stopped paying, my earlier POPLA claims were on occasions I simply forgot to pay.

It seems they’ve changed how the handle their process for recovery and
as I said I’m expecting many more letters of claim following the path of the the 2 I’ve received.

How should I deal with it? Send another debt advice letter/email and make no reference to the other or send the same and ask that they’re linked with any additional outstanding debt and inform them I intend to defend robustly in court? 

I note you no longer advice to make requests for data under GDPR, this has been successful for me in the past as the data never arrived but they stopped chasing the alleged debt

Look forward to some thoughts

UncleThomasCobley

Are you aware that they can wait up to 6 years before issuing a claim? Because you were suckered into the scam by the "parking attendant", it just proves the point that you should treat these unregulated parking companies and anyone who works for them just the same as you would treat a pile of steaming dog poo on the pavement... avoid at all costs.

If you need the 30 day hold, use it. However, in this case, if you are expecting multiple claims for the same location, perhaps wait and see if they issue a claim which is defended as per the template defence thread. If they issue subsequent claims for the same location, you can use the "cause of action estoppel argument.

Which PPC and which solicitors are they using? Which location?

bartos1976

Thanks @UncleThomasCobley I’ll have a look at the points you raised.

It’s RCP and their solicitors are BW legal, the car parks are Bridge Street, Sheffield 

fisherjim

bartos1976 said:

Basically in the past I’ve successfully defended these at POPLA. Anyway I got friendly with a parking attendant there just before COVID hit and he told me the said company didn’t pursue these through courts ever so I stopped paying, my earlier POPLA claims were on occasions I simply forgot to pay.

So are you saying you stopped paying for parking because you thought there would be no comeback?

If so this is exactly why we now have private car parks infested by greedy PPC's, the regulars on this forum do not support bilking!

KeithP

bartos1976 said:

It’s RCP...

Is that the Royal College of Physicians or the Royal College of Parking or something else?

Fruitcake

My guess would be RCP Parking Ltd.

I too do not condone bilking. As already mentioned, it is one of the reasons why PPCs exist. You are part of the problem. Hopefully you have learned your lesson and will pay for parking where required.

The reason for no longer requesting personal data only applies where the POC are vague and don't specify/define the cause of action.
If the POC are detailed, then an SAR should still be sent.

bartos1976

Yes RCP Parking Ltd is correct 

And fair comments on the biking, definitely lesson learnt.

I’ll be sure to send a SAR

Fruitcake

bartos1976 said:

Yes RCP Parking Ltd is correct 

And fair comments on the biking, definitely lesson learnt.

I’ll be sure to send a SAR

Only if the POC/reasons for issuing the charge are detailed and specific.
Do NOT send an SAR if the reason given is something like, the driver parked in breach of terms and conditions displayed on signs.

bartos1976

Fruitcake said:

bartos1976 said:

Yes RCP Parking Ltd is correct 

And fair comments on the biking, definitely lesson learnt.

I’ll be sure to send a SAR

Only if the POC/reasons for issuing the charge are detailed and specific.
Do NOT send an SAR if the reason given is something like, the driver parked in breach of terms and conditions displayed on signs.

So, they are reasonably detailed and 1 paragraph. They state I was ‘granted a limited contractual licence to enter the land (provides details). In return you were to abide by certain t’s and c’s which were prominently displayed’. 

It then describes the breach with date etc (non payment) and states despite the clients attempts to engage a suitable payment agreement it remains unpaid.

In this case should I send the SAR? Should I also request they’re all brought under one claim or is it better to defend the first and then use estoppel as someone else advised? 

Thanks for everyone’s input thus far

Umkomaas

Better if we can see the actual POC - just scan the POC box, redacting any identifiers in it. 

Coupon-mad

Hello again bartos!

Don't send a SAR.

It's not in our advice alnywhere now.