Letter of claim Bwlegal on behalf of NCP (3 pcns dating 4 years ago)

OO1989OO

Hi all

As the title says i have received a letter of claim for 3 pcns dating 4+ years ago. 
They are demanding £600
The evidence is the car i owned at the time driving into a car park and out. 

What are my next steps to stop this? Or do I just pay the amount they are asking. I dont want anything to go against my record. What's to stop them sending more old pcns in future as I have no recollection of these when they happened.

Any help is greatly appreciated i have read the newbie post but cant see anything relating to old pcns from years ago

Tia 

Gr1pr

Its anything in the last 6 years for England and Wales ( Limitations Act 1980  ) ,  last 5 years in Scotland 

See post 2 in the newbies sticky thread and respond with the LoC response template,  as keeper 

Coupon-mad

Nothing will go on your credit record if you follow the advice in post 2 of the NEWBIES thread. No CCJ or high costs are risked.

You will defend the claim when it arrives. We do these daily. Nobody risks anything and defending is free. Even if you lose at a hearing you'd pay LESS than this current demand because they've added three 'debt recovery fees' that no clued up judge allows.

Please show the LBC including the schedule as I want evidence for the government survey re multiple PCN demands being enhanced by hundreds.

OO1989OO

Thanks for your replies. 
Apologies for the questions but this stuff really does confuse me, is it the below im supposed to send? 

------

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. ############
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: xxxxxx xxxxxxxx Ltd

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:
[Correct address here]

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

Don't send me your usual blather about that.
I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully

----


Where would i send it to?

TIA

Coupon-mad

The thread tells you what to send and how and who to. There's no need for us to check it. This is an unimportant stage.

Please show the LBC including the schedule as I want evidence for the government survey re multiple PCN demands being enhanced by hundreds.

OO1989OO

I have direct messaged you with it

Coupon-mad

OO1989OO said:

I have direct messaged you with it

I never have time for pm's but ... here's the first page redacted of data.

I see they are offering 'settlement' (don't!) for 3 PCNs at £350 - instead of the headline demand for £500 - which shows that the added 'debt recovery' fees are a made up 'extorting money from motorists' multiple enhancement that's totally unjustified:

I mainly asked for the Schedule (the page breaking down the £500). Please show that here and not by pm please!

OO1989OO

Ok thanks for your advice. Breakdown is below

Coupon-mad

They haven't even said what the PCNs were issued for or where (what t&cs, what site and what breach(es) are alleged?!) and of course the DRA has added TWO HUNDRED QUID for issuing ONE template LBC:

Absolute joke letter & joke amount of money.

Sigh... can the Government seriously not see right through this and place far more weight on the immense consumer harm? If the MHCLG don't ban DRFs, they have failed motorists and the new statutory Code of Practice will be pointless and it will also fail.

I think I might change the template LBC response to drop the VAT question and instead cover the concept of 'propensity to pay', being more robust about that.

How about this:


------

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. ############
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: National Car Parks Ltd

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

[Correct address here]

I have no recollection of these so-called charges, one of which allegedly dates back to COVID lockdown so it is impossible to know who was driving or recall any details. You have lazily listed nothing except a few unremarkable dates and I see that a ludicrously disproportionate £200 has been added for no valid reason except for parking firms to make a lot more money than the already inflated £100 PCNs.

Debt recovery fee? Don't make me laugh.

£200 for one Letter of Claim that NCP could have issued themselves is gilding the lily, to quote a learned District Judge. You are acting on a no-win-no-fee basis and NCP has incurred no cost to transfer bulk PCN data to you, including my case.

No wonder the last Government called the £70 add-on "extorting money from motorists" and hopefully the current Government will soon realise the truth.

To be clear:

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

My 'propensity to pay' is zero. Add that to your algorithm and smoke it.

Yours faithfully

----