BATH RUH - POPLA Appeal Unsuccessful

KeithP wrote: »

Of course the Claimant has to conform with the protocols.

You do not have to believe the Claimant when he says his LBC conforms and would be unwise to do so. Check it yourself. There is a link to the Pre-Action Protocols for Debt Claims in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Post your draft response here if you wish.

Hi. Thanks for your response. I just wasn't sure if the Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols had been superseded by the Pre-Action protocol for Debts and Claims. I've referenced both in my letter. Is it OK to post it here on a public forum?

Thanks again.

ParkingEye Legal Department
ParkingEye Ltd,
PO Box 565,
Chorley,
PR6 6HT
Reference: ********** DD/MM/YY

Dear ParkingEye Legal Department,

I write to you in response to your Letter Before County Court Claim (LBCCC) dated DD/MM/YY.
Firstly, this alleged debt is disputed in the strongest terms and should ParkingEye wish to pursue this alleged debt through the court it will be defended vigorously.

Further, whilst the LBCCC claims to be compliant with the PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR DEBT CLAIMS it most certainly does not. In fact, Paragraph 7.1 of this Pre-Action Protocol clearly states "If a matter proceeds to litigation, the court will expect the parties to have complied with this Protocol. The court will take into account non-compliance when giving directions for the management of proceedings". As such, I request you provide a revised LBCCC containing all the information you are obliged to provide under the Pre-Action Protocol, Not limited to but including the following:

Ref Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols Paragraph 6 (a)

- The basis on which the claim is made. Details of the contract which is alleged to have been breached. How the alleged contract was formed.
- A summary of the facts.
- How the amount is calculated.


Ref the previously applicable Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims Paragraph 5.1 and 5.2

- Provide Photographic Evidence of the signage as it appeared on the day of the alleged breach of the alleged contract. This must include the exact geographical location of each sign, dimensions, and the exact content of each sign relevant to this alleged breach of the alleged contract. Photographic evidence to support the above is also requested.
- LBCCC states "Staff Resident". Please provide photographic evidence to show the alleged breach and identify the exact signage which ParkingEye believes forms a contract.

With regards to the LBCCC, Further Information Paragraph 4, Please note that whilst I wish to resolve this matter outside of the courts, based on the information available to me at this time I am unable to propose an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). I have no idea of how a sum of £80 has been calculated. At no time was my car parked inside any of the six parking bays identified by the adjacent signage as requiring a parking permit. At no time did I prevent any other vehicles from either entering or exiting any of the bays. The car!!!8217;s engine was running the entire time due to a flat battery, and at no time was the car left unattended.

Finally, Paragraph 5 states that "The sum detailed in this Letter of Claim is in line with guidelines set out by the British Parking Association (BPA). The BPA Code of Practice states that any charge based on breach of contract must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss". I have no idea how ParkingEye Ltd or Bath Royal United Hospital have suffered loss in this instance be it financial or otherwise. I therefore consider the sum of £80 to be punitive.

Each correspondence received so far from ParkingEye, whilst addressed to MR ***** ***** have in fact begun with "Dear Sir/Madam". Please do not send me another template letter. Please ensure this letter is read in full and all the requested information is provided to me in accordance with the aforementioned Pre-Action Protocols.

Sincerely,

KeithP wrote: »

Does it?

Not sure where you found that template, but parts of it are very old.

That letter also clearly identifies the driver.
Is that intentional?

I've already told them I was driving in my initial appeal before I was aware of this thread. And in my unsuccessful POPLA Appeal too.

How about.....

Finally, Paragraph 5 states that “The sum detailed in this Letter of Claim is in line with guidelines set out by the British Parking Association (BPA)”. The BPA Code of Practice states that “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. I have no idea how ParkingEye Ltd or Bath Royal United Hospital have suffered loss in this instance be it financial or otherwise. I therefore consider the sum of £80 to be punitive and unjustifiable.

Thanks for your response. I later realised that the guidance contained on the fightback thread is now out of date. I have read the newbies thread and have updated my response to Parking Eye above.

Having already appealed to both PE and POPLA without the use of these threads, I am already a little further down the line and perhaps a little closer to a court appearance. It seems PE have tweaked their LBCCCs over the years and they now contain much more information required by the PD. But I still feel they haven't once provided any evidence of my car actually being parked in a bay requiring a permit, and therefore they havent provided a summary of the facts as required by the PD. They simply state that I am in breach of contract. For me, there is no contract.

At this point I feel all I can now do is send in my response and wait to see if PE proceed with the court route. Having read some of the other letters on this thread, mine looks a little amateurish to say the least.