The driver paid the correct fee of 50p to stay for up to 1 hour. The PCN notice correctly identified that the car was parked for less than half that time. The registration number was correctly entered and checked on the machine display before the Validate button was hit. The machine display confirmed that the fee had been paid. Unfortunately the pay machine did not issue a receipt. The company in question are just using photographic evIdence that the car was parked. They have not supplied any evidence that payment was not made. As the RK I appealed and asked for visibility of the payment machine log to show that the registration and payment was made. They have refused to supply that information.
So I am determined to fight this unjust charge of £100 when in good faith the correct parking fee of 50p was paid and met all the parking contractual requirements stated on the car park notices.
The initial appeal to the PPC has been rejected and I have now received a POPLA code. I would like advice on whether to submit a POPLA appeal or just ignore all letters except for a court case should it come to that. I am determined to fight this unjust PCN and will happily go to court to fight my case.
Any experienced and wise advice is welcome.
Which PPC?
What, verbatim, was your initial appeal?
EDIT your post to avoid identifying the driver. refer only to 'the driver.' This may be crucial.
They'll try and argue (if a sign exists to that effect) that the driver did not call the emergency number.
Your appeal should contain the term 'frustration of contract' (can be googled). Essentially the fault present in their equipment prevented the driver from complying with the terms and conditions (i.e. displaying a ticket).
Not sure how far that'll go with POPLA, but should be mileage in any court claim defence, although they will try and argue that the driver could have mitigated this by calling any emergency number if one was displayed. Might be worth finding out if one was.
In that case, make sure you state that (a photo might be useful as backup) on the POPLA appeal. Don't mention the number on the main sign - just state that there was no notice on the pay machine or anywhere else nearby that informed you of what to do in the event of a malfunction of the machine.
Also mention that you requested the payment logs for the machine and they refused. Doesn't paint them in a good light.
IF your initial appeal is exactly as quoted above, appeal to POPLA as keeper.
Check through PoFA sched 4 para 8 and tick off ALL items where the NtK doesn't comply EXACTLY. Put together your appeal based on others on the forum and post on here for checking.
The usual line is that the log will show other payments and therefore there was no 'malfunction'. But the elephant in the room is that of course if it wasn't logged then a log won't show it! They can prove the log entry is not there (which in their minds is the say as you not paying at all).
As I already noted, there are documented situations were single payments are 'lost' on the log. Which is why any ticket (or lack thereof) is important. If you had a ticket then that would trump the missing entry. Basically they are calling you a liar and never made a payment and are now saying you did after getting caught. (Indeed, the evidence appears indistinguishable)
I have already asked the PPC to supply the pay machine logs which include details about the car for which I am the RK. They have so far refused to provide this key information that would prove thatci used the machine and payment entered. I have just picked up a tip frof anothe thread on this forum that in my appeal to POPLA I should state that I am entitled to ask for and receive this information under the Data Protection Act 1998. It appears that I can also ask to see the details of the logic applied to any automated decisions. This probably applies here because the system will need to match up the ANPR camera data with the payment machine data. I also intend to ask for visibility of maintenance and software validation records.
I hope full that this will confirm that I did try to use the machine to pay. Also as a minimum it will hopefully move the case into the 'too hard' file!
Whilst the PPC has the name and address of the RK, presumably by paying the DVLA, can they pass it on to a third party debt collection agency or would that constitute a breach of the Data Protection Act?
As the debt collection company are acting as the agents of the PPC then that is allowed. If the PPC sell the debt to another company then that is a fail.
Yes, but it's a 'claim' and not an appeal. (And you get the chance to defend)
Ignore debt collectors entirely. We don’t need to know anything about them at all.
PCN_NtK_14Sept17.pdf ( 1.87MB )
: 162
As RK I have submitted a POPLA appeal online within the 28 days stated. How long does the the PPC have to submit 'Operator Information & Evidence? I can't find any mention of a time limit on the POPLA website.
within 28 days i believe
Keep checking the site, you should have a notice telling you (online and email) when you can view their case to make your rebuttal.
The following text is copied from the POPLA website when I sign in to track the appeal:
We have received your appeal and have requested the parking operator to provide information and evidence about your appeal. Once the operator sends us their evidence it will appear here. We will notify you when we receive this information and evidence so that you can provide your comments.
It doesn't state a time limit implying that it is open ended which seems odd given that the RK is given a limit of 28 days.
What do you expect from a trade body that represents the interests of the industry?
Keep checking the POPLA portal on a daily basis. When the PPC's evidence is received, you only have 7 days, from receipt of that evidence by POPLA, to rebut any points they make. Unfortunately, POPLA have a habit of not informing you for 4 days!
And, if you DONT get a copy of the evidence - they have had issues with teh site previously - you infgorm POPLA and then tell them when you DO get access.
ALso you really have 6 days, theyre pretty quick to work on the file .
At which point in the POPLA appeal process does the parking company have to pay the £27 fee? Is it when they issue the POPLA code to the RK or when they submit their information & evidence? Given that there is only a 60% success rate through POPLA then the PPC has to decide whether to risk a further £27 for a 60% chance of winning. Of course the real odds depend on the individual case. I am just wondering how often the PPCs cut their losses by not proceeding with the POPLA appeal given that they have to pay the fee.
I think they pay it quite late in the process. I have had a number of appeals submitted to POPLA but the PPC electing not to contest.
My 7nderstanding is they pay when the code is used.
These ANPR car parks MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS!!
They are an absolute racketeering poison.
How does one do that, pray? Particularly if one has no knowledge of such practises until one receives a missive from the parking company, 6 weeks before your words of wisdom.
As RK I have now received the operator's POPLA evidence for comment. Part of my evidence was that there was no signage on or adjacent to the pay machines with a phone number to ring given that the machinequipment display not issue a receipt even though payment was made as indicated on the pay machine display. In the latest evideo centre to POPLA PP have shown a new sign erected between the two pay machines! The photo shows that the sign is in pristine condition together with evidence of new concrete around the based of the sign! It has taken nearly three weeks to respond with their POPLA evidence during which time they have been erecting new signs! The photos clearly show that the photos have only been taken in the last three weeks given the colour and quantity of the foliage on the nearby trees! What a cynical attempt to influence POPLA.
Then you must refute this. But I'm not surprised.
....And quickly. I believe you only get 7 days from when POPLA receive the PPC's evidence and you have probably already lost 4 days of that under their peculiar rules.
Yes, you only get 7 days. Aim for 6
Simple bullet points. POint out that these signs are clearly new, and were clearly NOT taken at the time but later on. They show the operator AGREES the signage was insufficient and inadequate - they would not erect it otherwise. Your appeal must be upheld.
I have been given 7 days to reply from today. It clearly states so in the email. The PPC evidence was only uploaded at midday today.
The PPC evidence has made a major issue out of having plenty signage. They have shown several photos of signs showing the T&C's and in each case circled the signs in red. However, these signs are only in one half of the car park and in August most of these were hidden or obscured by the trees/shrubs surrounding that half. On the half where the car was parked there are none of these signs and i have photographic evidence to prove it. So despite their claim that they have followed all the BPA guidelines for clear signage I think they are less than clear! Let's see what POPLA think.
I still maintain that the VRN was entered into the machine together with payment. So I demanded to see the payment logs. They previously refused to supply these when I requested to see them but have now included an extract in their POPLA evidence. Not surprisingly the VRN is not listed. They claim that the machine was working because several other cars are listed as having paid. However there were several people queuing to pay just after the driver and there are NO recorded entries for about half an hour afterwards which looks a bit suspicious.
I don't know how POPLA will see this evidence but as the driver entered the VRN and paid I will contest this all the way to court if necessary. There was no attempt by the driver or RK to deny that the car was parked intentionally for the period stated and that the driver was aware that it was a camera enforced car park.
So you refute all the evidence that you do not agree with. If you have those phots then add them to the POLA notice.
The payment logs - is it accompanied by a statement of truth verifying that this is ALL the logs? Entirely com0lete? Or is it just a random listing that isn’t verifiable in anyway.
Refer popla to your photos that show THEIR photos are not representative.
The PPC POPLA evidence includes an evidence checklist which looks like it is what POPLA expect from the PPC. Checklist item E requires copies of the original representations and notice of rejection. They have included copies of all of their correspondence but not all of mine! Is this something that is worth stressing to POPLA and what weight would it have? It appears that they are being selective in what they show to POPLA. The letter from me that they have not copied to POPLA is the one where I ask for visibility of the machine payment logs with a reasonable date for reply, which they just ignored. I will try to add it to my POPLA comments in reply to the PPC evidence. The online system restricts me to a 2000 word reply. I am not clear whether I can attach my letter or just highlight the fact that the PPC has left it out.
OK, so in your rebuttal, you state that the supposed list of VRMs has nnothing to indicate anything - you cannto tell what machine this was from (if there is more than one), whether this is a complete etract, who performed the extract and when, and nothing to verify that it has not been tampered with. There is no statement verifying that this is, in fact, anything of note other than an excel spreadsheet of VRMs which could be from anywwshere. THis is NOT reliable evidence of anything. It also does NOT disprove your appeal point - that the machine failed to record the full and correct VRM. It in fact SUPPORTS the contention, as the VRM is not listed!
You add to your POPLA comments that your letter of date X was not incluced, whihc is where you asked for Y. You cannot attach new evidence (hence why you should have included it yourself, ideally) and you dont use the online portal, you email.
Thanks nosferatu1001. You are being most helpful. I really appreciate you taking the trouble to read, understand and respond.
In hindsight it is indeed unfortunate that I didn't send my second letter which has been ignored in the PPC evidence other than listing it with date in a table of actions. I wasn't aware that I could email separate from the online response. That's just my lack of experience in dealing with this but hopefully others will read this and learn from it.
I do agree with your point that the VRN list indicates a problem in that my VRN is not listed even though it was entered and was acknowledged by the machine at the time! That is exactly my assertion.
The PPC POPLA evidence includes a Parking Services Agreement with the land owner. It is interesting that they have volunteered this additional information even though I didn't request but perhaps should have. Anyway what it reveals is that the agreement start date is valid for 12 months from March 2016. So the submitted PSA has expired!! It does state that there is a rolling contract extension option but they have not supplied any evidence that it has been taken up! What will POPLA make of that?
Nothing if you dont bring it to their attention!
If they cannot prove they have the authority then POPLA should rule for you.
Except POPLA will likely say this wasnt an original appeal point. they bend over backwards for the operator.
You could write to the PPC, setting out the failures of the POPLA adjudication (we havent seen it yet) and why you will not be paying. State you do not consent to your data being passed to any third party, and will under no circumstances ever make payment to a third party. AS such, passing your data to a debt collector will be a breach of the DPA1998, and will be the PPCs costs to bear. You require they send a fully compliant LBA, that meets the requirements of the new PAP for Debt Action, within 14 days. If they do not do so you will consider the matter closed.
No they have to give 30 days
They can’t “trip up”. This isn’t a council,ticket, this is a mere invoice.
You can be passive or take charge. Your choice. I ‘now which I’d do.
Assessor summary of operator case
The driver’s parking session was expired or unpaid.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states the driver complied with the car park requirements. He says the driver entered the registration number of the vehicle and paid for one hour parking time. The appellant advised the stay on site was 29 minutes and the payment machine did not issue a ticket. He states there was no signage on site stating that a ticket must be displayed. The appellant says he is entitled to receive payment machine records under the Data Protection Act 1998.
He advised that the notice to keeper only gave him 14 days to reply instead of 28 days as stated in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant has provided POPLA with images of the signage on site and the payment machine.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider PoFA 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. As such, the operator has successfully transferred liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle.
The terms and conditions of the site state “Please pay for your stay. Please enter the full correct registration of your vehicle at the payment terminals. Up to 1 hour £0.50. If you enter or park on the land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100”. The operator has issued a £100 PCN due to the driver’s parking session was expired or unpaid.
The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, the operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle, RO12 XGH, entering the site at 14:06, exiting at 14:36; the period of stay was 30 minutes. The appellant states the driver complied with the car park requirements. He says the driver entered the registration number of the vehicle and paid for one hour parking time. The appellant advised the stay on site was 29 minutes and the payment machine did not issue a ticket. He states there was no signage on site stating that a ticket must be displayed. I note the appellant’s comments however, the operator has provided a system print out showing payments made throughout the day in question. The evidence provided shows that there were no payments made against the appellant’s vehicle in question. This implies that the driver did not make a payment for parking time.
Furthermore, it is not a requirement to have to display a valid ticket in a vehicle, and the operator has not stated this.
The appellant says he is entitled to receive payment machine records under the Data Protection Act 1998. I note the appellant’s comments however, as previously stated the operator has provided a full system print out which shows payments made throughout the day in question. The operator only needs to provide evidence in the evidence pack that fully rebuts an appellant’s claims.
He advised that the notice to keeper only gave him 14 days to reply instead of 28 days as stated in the PoFA 2012. I note the appellant’s comments however, as previously stated the notice to keeper complies with the requirements set out in PoFA 2012. This means that the operator gave the appellant the correct timescales to give driver details, make a payment or appeal the PCN.
Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that when they enter a site they have understood and complied with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the driver did not make a payment for parking time. The appellant has not provided POPLA with any evidence to show the driver made a payment, and POPLA assess appeals based upon the evidence provided. Based upon the evidence provided, I can see that the driver remained on site therefore, agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied that the signage clearly informs motorists that an appropriate payment for parking must be made. As the driver remained on site without making a payment for parking, they failed to comply with the terms and conditions. As such, the PCN was issued correctly.
Here are the comoments I sent to PORLANDO, most of which seems to have been ignored. I thought point 1 was very significant but hasn't even been acknowledged!
MOTORIST COMMENTS AGAINST PARKING COMPANY’S SUBMITTED EVIDENCE
1. The Premier Park (PP) evidence includes, under Other Evidence, a Parking Services Agreement (PSA) with a start date of 15 March 2016. Para 1.1 states that it is valid for a period of 12 months and so expired before the claimed PCN date. Para 1.2 does state that there is a rolling contract option but the submitted evidence doesn’t show that this option was taken up. Consequently I refute the claim that PP had any authority to issue a PCN on 7/8/17.
2. The PPC evidence includes photos of signs alleging compliance with BPA guidelines. This evidence is selective and misleading. The photos were taken at a time of year when there is no foliage surrounding the main car park. In August the foliage obscures several of these signs. Also there are NO SIGNS at all in the overflow car park where the vehicle was parked. These points can be seen clearly by looking at the following 360° photo in street view https://www.instantstreetview.com/@53.385934,-2.592539,205.5h,-0.85p,2.06z. The vehicle was parked where the red car is on the overflow car park i.e. two cars to the right of the CCP ALL DAY PARKING sign on the street view image. I also highlight that this overflow car park constitutes the largest area of the entire car park. There are no signs at all between the overflow car park and the pedestrian exit/entry gate from the car park to the main highway. I therefore refute the claim that the BPA guidelines for signage have been complied with.
3. Checklist point E requires PP to supply the original representations. They have specifically excluded my letter to them dated 14 September (but acknowledged its existance in the PCN History table under Checklist D) which, significantly, requested information on the payment logs. They failed to supply this information at the date requested.
4. The PSA paragraph 2 states that the service is to include a ‘pay by phone system’ (RingGo) for payment. However this facility is not provided at this car park! This would have made paying and receipting much simpler, more reliable and more transparent. I regularly pay by credit card or pay by phone in car parks for this very reason. I recently used RingGo which worked well and provided me with adequate assurance and traceability that payment was successfully made and fully acknowledged. Therefore I refute the claim that the car park was being run in accordance with the PSA.
5. The driver was aware that the car park had camera enforcement and so discussion of grace periods in the PP evidence is irrelevant in this case. The car was parked deliberately in the overflow car park for 29 mins and the VRN entered into the pay machine together with a 50p coin soon after entering the car park. The machine display provided feedback that the VRN was entered and would not have proceeded to request payment otherwise. The fact that the VRN does not appear at all in the PP log submitted under Other Evidence is an indication that the system was not reporting correctly. Also the evidence does not include logs of the coin money collected that day to tally with the system electronic logs. The driver inserted a 50p coin into the machine in which case, under PP’s assertion that payment was not made, they should have had 50p more in the machine than was indicated by the logs. Therefore I maintain that payment of 50p was inserted into the coin machine and that given that the machine display indicated that the VRN was correctly validated and payment inserted then the driver could reasonably assume that payment was indeed accepted. I therefore firmly and strongly refute the assertion that the driver parked without payment of 50p to cover the 29 minute stay.
6. The submitted logs do not have any verifiable evidence of where this is from, who performed the extract and when, whether it is a complete list, whether any other filters have been applied and nothing to verify that it has not been tampered with. It does not disprove my appeal point that the VRN was entered correctly and correct payment made. In fact it shows that the system did not properly record or reveal the VRN and payment as it is not listed!
7. In my POPLA appeal I requested that the logic of the machine automated decisions be supplied and that I am entitled to see this under the Data Protection Act 1998. I note that this information has not been supplied in the PP submitted evidence.
8. There were several people waiting to pay behind the driver and it is interesting that the submitted log has no entries for 20 minutes valid from 14.07. As the ANPR camera records the vehicle entering at 14.06 then there should be entries during this 20 minute period allowing time for the driver to park up and walk to the pay machine. This therefore calls into question the validity of the submitted logs.
9. I request that the Appellant’s appeal is upheld.
The following is a redacted version of the letter I have received from Premier Park following the POPLA assessment. I would appreciate any thoughts on how best to respond.
You chose to use the independent alternative dispute resolution service, POPLA, to adjudicate on this PCN and after reviewing all the evidence submitted, they decided to deny your appeal.
Should you consider not making payment now due of £100 we draw your attention to the recent landmark decision in the Supreme Court of the UK, dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd v Mr Barry Beavis. This case was seen as an important ‘test case’ due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The ruling sets a legally binding precedent on all similar cases for the whole of the UK.
If payment is not received by the due date we will seek to recover theories owed to us via our Debt Recovery Service and may then commence court action to recover what you owe. This will include additional charges to include legal and court costs. Should judgement be awarded in our favour, this may affect your ability to obtain credit in the future. The decision of the independent adjudicator will form part of our case in these proceedings.
Nothing really to respond - unless you want to reiterate why POPLA got it wrong. POPLA's 'decision' isn't likely to make much difference to the Judge.
Otherwise, it's sit back and see if they issue a claim - However, they are litigious so a claim is possible. (The amount will be around £180-250 should you lose)
Small Claims Court. (Which would be at County Court instead of Magistrate's Court)
The usual routine is to claim 'collection/debt' costs of around £50/60, then there's allowed court costs such as solicitor (£50), claim fee and hearing fee.
No, it says may affect your credit. It won't affect your credit as long as you pay within 1 month of any judgment.
'Beavis' doesn't guarantee them a win. (Nor the POPLA opinion - and I'd call it that...)
Small Claims TRACK of the County Court.
£25 filing fee, £25 hearing fee are allowed, as is UP TO £50 for solicitor costs - you always challenge teh latter, as their solicitors DO NOT spend £50 worth of time.
'Debt collection' costs may depend on what the signs said.
Yes, you must distance circumstances from Beavis.
They can try to claim whatever the hell they want to. Its your job to object to anything you feel they CANNOT claim
Uunder POFA, the maximum a Keeper can be charged is the amount on the NtK. Nothing more. Further, in teh BEAVIS case against a KNOWN DRIVER ONLY the amount on the sign was allowed - nothing more. (plus court etc fees - they have to be allowed)
Thesituation is different enough. Pay and Display car park, so a "simple contract" as opposed to the complicated licence envisgaed in Beavis.
How on earth can you use UTCCR 1999, when they were removed in 2015? CRA2015. Youre reading old threads again. 2017 threads ONLY.
It has some legs. However youre missing the main point of Beavis
The amount WAS a penalty, but was an allowable one because of the commercial justification that lifted the penalty rule. Without all the same conditions being met, it is a penalty. You cannot charge a penalty in teh UK - only the courts can.
I wrote a letter to Premier Park outlining in some detail the flaws in the POPLA appeal. This included a response to their reference to Beavis as a landmark case and why it does not apply in my case. I made it very clear that I will challenge a Court case should they decide to take that route. They have now sent a letter which does not even acknowledge my letter! It is just another deadline of 1 week to settle before they pass it to their Debt Recovery Agency. They then say that they MAY then pass it to their solicitor to start Court proceedings. The letter is headed ' OFFER TO SETTLE TO AVOID COURT PROCEEDINGS'. They don't appear to be offering anything!
The letter also refers to the letter following the PAP however it isn't clear whether this constitutes a formal Letter before Claim. My understanding of the PAP is that they have to issue a formal Letter before Claim and then allow a response within 30 days before starting Court Proceedings.
In not responding to my detailed letter to them they are clearly just going to ignore any reasonable discussion and press on towards Court action. One of my points was that their POPLA evidence showed that their contract with the landowner expired before the date of the PCN! This would appear to be pretty fundamental but was also ignored by POPLA! However they seem to think the POPLA decision is key to winning in Court.
So my approach now is to ignore all further letters except ones relating to formal Court proceedings. I would appreciate any advice on this if anybody thinks that I have misunderstood something and that I should be taking a different approach.
Thank you in advance of any replies.
Yes, I thin’ you should be prudent and treat it as a lba. It contains the threat of court action and mentions the pap so this is reasonable. So send the looooong request for a compliant pap
Exatly what I said, barring the typo - i meant "LBA" when I said "PAP" at the end.
there is a long lresponse to a rubbish LBA around, which essewtnaily says:
1) your LBA does not meet the requirements of the PPA
2) You should have known this as this is your job
3) send me all the documents you should have said PLUS these specific documents
Have a wander over to the MSE Forum, into the newbies thread I believe there is a link there. Research is good
Debt recovery - yawn. Ignore. no powers
The intended audience for a letter is not always the person youre sending the letter to. In this case, youre writing for the beenfit of the court. You can include their awful letter, and your REASONABLE response, which if they then ignore doesnt look good for them.
If they do not comply with the pre-action protocols, then it doesn't reflect well on them in court (should it get that far), and provides you with ammunition to claim costs due to their unreasonable behaviour if they decide to disregard the pre-action protocols (which are in place for a reason).
Having read the long thread on the MSE Forum on LBA's I now understand much better what advice you are all giving me! I was initially and incorrectly assuming that a letter from me to the PPC was for them and I am pretty confident that they will ignore it as they have done with all my previous letters. The key point, if I have now understood, is that it is effectively for the judge should it go that far!
My only concern is that their latest letter entitled 'OFFER TO SETTLE TO AVOID COURT PROCEEDINGS' is not actually the formal LBA/C? It is not from a solicitor and says that the next step is debt recovery. However I think that nosferatu's point is that I should treat it as a very poor and non-compliant LBA. This seems to be good advice and should at least put them on the back foot if only temporarily if they are determined to follow through. I suspect that they might because they seem very confident now that that have POPLA assessment in their favour.
In their previous letter which was the one immediately after the POPLA decision they tried to use Beavis as a landmark judgement in their favour. I rebuffed that strongly pointing out the difference with this case and why Beavis did not apply. I note that they have not mentioned Beavis in their most recent letter!
Thanks for your ongoing tips guys. It really helps when all this stuff is new and I am having to learn quickly.
yes, thats entirely the point. It paints the picture that you are being reasonable, and are communicating with them on a rational level. Theyre not.
It doesnt have to be a solicitor sending it. As I already told you it is REASONABLE TO TREAT IT AS A LBA. You have the wrong words "determined" isnt the right word - youre in a roboclaim process, with zero thought applied.
Youre assuming anyone has read or understood your letter> They havent. That costs time, which is money.
No theyll just carry on regardless. Your letter wont be read, you may even get a "as you didnt respond..." template.
We never want to see debt recovery letters. A proper LBA or a claim form...
Again: you’d think so
But lying in court or not bothering to turn up hasn’t always resulted in “unreasonable “ costs against the ppc, so don’t presume anything here. There is ALWAYS litigation risk. Always.
Its a number game, provided enough people fold and pay after seeing a claim then losing a few to properly motivated and prepared defendants is acceptable. Its just a way of applying pressure and a type of debt collection.
As above
Behaving unreasonably doesnt mean they wont win, either.
It's literally a numbers game...
So after sending a long letter to the PPC in response to their letter, which I assumed to be a letter before action (LBA), I have now received a solicitors letter. It is now five weeks since i sent my letter to the PPC giving them 14 days to reply in full otherwise I would assume that they did not wish to proceed on accordance with the PAP. My letter has not even been acknowledged. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. The solicitors letter now gives me 14 days to pay £100 to the PPC with the threat of potential court action if I don't.
The letter does not have a title so it is not clear if this is just a standard debt recovery letter or effectively a more formal LBA. If it is meant to be a more formal LBA then it does not state so and certain lyndsey doesn't contain all the detail required by the PAP.
I am certainly not going to respond by sending £100 to the PPC!
Any thoughts or advice on how I should treat this letter?
If you are unsure of the letter then post it up for comment.
The letter only states debt recovery on behalf of Premier Park and does not say anything explicitly about being a LBA or following the PAP. It is identical to ones I have seen in various places from SCS Law. It appears to be just a standard brief letter. I am not familiar with how to post a redacted version but I will do so if I can work out how to do so.
My personal view is that letters from solicitors should receive a reply
In the event of a claim, a court could regard failure to reply as unreasonable and won't make a distinction between a debt collector style letter and a Letter Before Claim
I would keep the reply very simple
Dear Sir
Ref ****
I have received your letter dated ***
I deny any debt to Premier Park and refer you to my previous correspondence with your client
Yours Faithfully
SCS can't complain about the reply
If it was genuinely acting as a solicitor, it would already have a copy of the correspondence
I wouldn't waste time with Companies House
It doesn't take any action for failures to include legally required information
You can use it to advantage later to justify your brief response
SCS didn't identify itself and, as you had already adequately explained why you disputed the debt, you provided no more information than a genuine solicitor would already possess
The letter is titled Re: Debt owed to Premier Park Ltd
The letter also states 'At this stage please contact Premier Park Ltd on tel. no or pcnpayments.com'.
So it appears that it is a plain debt recovery letter. All they have done is change the name address on a standard template letter. PP appear to have paid the minimum amount to send a vanilla threatening solicitors letter presumably hoping that will do the trick and I will cave in and pay, which I won't.
My previous letter to PP did make it clear that I wouldn't respond to letters from their DRA. I haven't received any to ignore so maybe they took that onboard but thought that I may be spooked by a solicitors letter instead?
Premier have probably "borrowed" the letterhead from the solicitor and the solicitor knows nothing about it.
You could write to them and require a response within 14 days
Write to the sol, and require a response within 14 days, asking if the letter was issued by them
State that lack of a response will be taken as confirmaiton that the letter was counterfeit, and can be ignored OR reported to trading standards as an attempt to fraudulently obtain money.
Great advice ostell and nosferatu! Thanks guys. I was unsure whether to respond directly or ignore but you have given me good amunition to reply. I thought it was suspicious that the letter said to reply to PP rather than the solicitors. If the solicitor was really dealing with it now then surely they would expect any response. I also thought that if I send a letter to the solicitors and they are genuinely dealing with it then it will incur additional charges for PP further reducing their appetite to continue.
I should have added that I actually received two almost identical letters four days apart. The second letter stated that I should disregard the first one. The only difference was that the first one had the wrong car park! I think it just emphasises that the letter was just a copy and paste from a well used template.
Anyway I have now sent a letter to SCS Law as per the advice in this thread. The PPC now needs to get off the potty and decide if they are going to proceed to Court action or not.
It is now 5 weeks since I sent a letter to SCS Law giving them 14 days to reply. The silence has so far been deafening. As per the advice I included the following;
The lack of a response will be taken as confirmation that the letter was counterfeit and can be ignored and reported to trading standards as an attempt to fraudulently obtain money.
I would appreciate advice on whether I should just be pleased that the PPC is seemingly not taking this further or should I take action to follow this up as a potential fraud case?
Much too soon to assume that Premier has dropped the case
Delays of four months or even years are common
I would personally not send copies of a Trading Standards complaint to PP and SCS
At the moment they probably think you're bluffing so any contact from TS will come as a surprise
Reporting without warning still enables you to use a "Trading Standards is investigating you" response to any further demands
It also leaves the possibility to report PP and SCS to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority if TS won't get involved
I am certainly not bluffing. On a completely separate issue I am underway with a formal complaint to the Financial Ombudsman, which they have followed up with the company concerned. So I am certainly prepared to take whatever action is necessary or appropriate. My question was really just seeking some wise advice on tactics and timing.
The brief history is that the PCN was issued for an ANPR car park run by Premier Park. The correct parking fee was paid and there was no overstay. The issue was that the pay machine did not issue a receipt. It went to POPLA but the appeal was not upheld. It went to LBA stage and PP used SCS Law. The LBA was completely inadequate and I refused to proceed until they sent a fully compliant LBA. They went quite for over 15 months until today when I received a new letter from BW Legal who have not been involved until now.
It appears like PP/ SCS Law may have given up and sold the alleged debt to BW Legal? The letter from them indicates that they have not read any of the previous correspondence! They are also throwing in a claim for £60 initial legal costs for good measure.
My question really is whether anybody has any recent experience of dealing with BW Legal? On the one hand I am inclined to ignore the letter as it is essentially a debt collection speculative letter. On the other hand I am thinking thay I should respond pointing out the errors in the letter e.g. it states that the original PCN was never appealed which is incorrect. If I did respond then I would make it clear that I would not enter into any further correspondence short of a formal LBA.
A multi-award winning law firm specialising in volume collections, across both regulated and unregulated sectors, who are dual regulated through the FCA and SRA.
We employ around 265 people at our Leeds based office which in turn makes us the largest privately owned debt collection law firm in the UK.
Just a quick update on this case for anyone interested in Premier Park PCNs and their debt collectors BW Legal. I sent a firm reply to BWL to make it clear that they had clearly not read any of the previous correspondence. The implication was that they probably didn't even have it. I specifically pointed out that PP did not respond to my last letter to them in Jan 18 and to their alleged solicitors SCS Law in Feb 18. Those letters included a request for a fully compliant LBA.
To my surprise my letter to BWL appears to have been read by a human being. BWL's response is actually a fairly polite letter saying that my points have been noted and that they have put the case on hold whilst they seek advice from their client PP. Interesting given that the first letter from from BWL included a letter from PP saying that the case has been passed to their legal team, BWL, and that all future correspondence will be with them. That PP letter looked a bit suspicious as it was on what appeared to be PP photo-copied letter headed paper. So in conclusion this doesn't appear to be locked in a robo-process as suggested by a previous post. I await their next move with interest.
If they can they leave it in the roboclaim process. If they get a rejection that forces them out of roboclaim then they have to respond.
Usually a Letter Before Claim
This will give you an opportunity to not only refer BWL to previous correspondence but give them a list of documents, photographs and information that you want
Doesn't matter
BWL will send its own
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)