Roxburghe & Our Company Cars, My boss is concerned... |
Roxburghe & Our Company Cars, My boss is concerned... |
Tue, 27 Mar 2012 - 12:34
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 272 Joined: 13 Sep 2011 From: Croydon, Surrey Member No.: 49,608 |
Ok, so one of our drivers, in a company car received an 'Invoice' from Meteor for parking outisde the station where we are based.
I advised my boss to ignore the 'PCN' and any subsequesnt letters, but was advised to send an appeal against the ticket: "I am appealing against the PCN No ***** as I feel it is not a valid issue. This vehicle is driven by a Private Hire Driver, renting the vehicle from us. The vehicle has a pre-booked sticker attached to my vehicle that allows me to stop on Red-Routes for set down and collection of passengers and parcels. The vehicle is driven by various people, not all members of staff working for the company. The liability of the offence lies with the driver of the vehicle, not the registered keeper. Under the terms and conditions of their employment, drivers of company-owned vehicles are responsible for their own parking tickets. Your dispute is with the driver and (**** **** ***** Ltd) have no liability in the matter. As you will be aware, Data Protection legislation does not permit us to release the personal details of an employee to a private company. We therefore decline to provide this information in the absence of a court judgment or confirmation in writing by a company officer that : 1 Court papers have been prepared and require only the addition of the defendant's name 2 You will indemnify (Travel Car Services Ltd) from any or all costs and damages that result from such disclosure Any further correspondence between yourselves and us apart from the acknowledgement of the cancellation of this PCN will be considered as harassment. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully Fleet Administrator" We received a standard pro forma letter from Roxburghe, quoting Norwich Parmacal order and the usual 2 court cases to make people tremble in their boots. Notable difference was that Watteau V Fenwick was dated 1983 not 1893!! My C.E.O. wants to know if they are more likely to persue this through Roxburgh and Graham White solicitors than normal as the car(s) are registered to the business. Any replies, appreciated. And if you can give me quotes I can show him, would be even better. Many Thanks everyone -------------------- -----------------------------------
A little bit strange: Has a love for the Rover 800 2 door Coupé I have 2! Both a little special and rare. And 2 other Rover 800's!!! Phil B :) |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 27 Mar 2012 - 12:34
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 27 Mar 2012 - 12:59
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
Graham White has a large folder at the Solicitors Regulation Authority, in connection with sending out a lot (and I mean 'a LOT') of letters threatening court action which they NEVER follow up on. To our knowledge we have seen one claim from him, and the claim was subsequently set aside because the paperwork was incorrect. Apart from that - nothing whatsoever.
Roxburghe's are also well known on here, and are in fact the debt collector that sends Graham White's letters on his behalf (he's actually called Michael Sobell). Again, no court action known on here from them. Why not raise a complaint to the SRA about White and the CSA about Roxburghe's given that you've already told their client that you have no liability and yet they are still hounding you. I would look upon that as harassment. EDIT: Also, watch out for White quoting CPR 31.16, and forgetting to mention that these clauses do not apply to the small claims court. That tells you everything you need to know about his credentials as a 'solicitor'. This post has been edited by ManxRed: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 - 13:01 -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Tue, 27 Mar 2012 - 13:21
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22,678 Joined: 23 Mar 2009 Member No.: 27,239 |
That was a good letter
What's the basis of the claim ? I thought that the last time a PPC applied for a Norwich Pharmacal it was kicked out. Roxburghe seem to be rather economical with the information about an NPO. For a start, they would have to accept full responsibility for your costs, win or lose. If they won, they would then have to include the costs in a subsequent claim against the driver. The other point is that their own letter shows that they can't obtain an NPO against your company. An NPO can only be obtained against you if you're involved (as in having information) but are unlikely to be a party to subsequent proceedings. If they're arguing Law of Agency (Watteau v Fenwick) they're claiming that they are holding you liable. It's got to be one or the other. I would now go for a blunt reply We deny any debt to your client Your letter has not provided any reason to change our position. Neither has it addressed our reasonable comments or request. We assume that your client is aware that an application for a Norwich Pharmacal Order requires that he accepts liability for our full costs, whether or not he is successful. Please refer the matter back to your client and do not contact us again. I don't think there's any record of Graham White turning up in court This post has been edited by Gan: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 - 13:22 |
|
|
Tue, 27 Mar 2012 - 13:22
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 272 Joined: 13 Sep 2011 From: Croydon, Surrey Member No.: 49,608 |
Yeah, I know Roxburghe's are well known on here and other Fora, as are Graham White.
I will see what he wants to do. The last thing he wants is an actual case being presented against him! I will suggest he plays a waiting game, as i have done myself in the past. He just needs to see it in writing on here. [Edit:] Just seen your edit. [/Edit] This post has been edited by Phil_Barker: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 - 13:24 -------------------- -----------------------------------
A little bit strange: Has a love for the Rover 800 2 door Coupé I have 2! Both a little special and rare. And 2 other Rover 800's!!! Phil B :) |
|
|
Tue, 27 Mar 2012 - 14:38
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
Alternative replies:
QUOTE "We acknowledge your letter of xx/xx/xx referring to your client. We note that your client's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: **** off." a.k.a. Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) or QUOTE "I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your letter before me. In a moment it shall be behind me.” - Max Reger. Or QUOTE "You cannot be serious!" - John McEnroe
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:33 |