Letter from solicitors re ticket 2 years ago |
Letter from solicitors re ticket 2 years ago |
Mon, 21 May 2018 - 07:55
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 17 May 2018 Member No.: 98,006 |
I'd really appreciate some guidance as to whether anything can be done now about a ticket received 2 years ago. This was for parking on DYL on a private industrial estate patrolled by UKCPM. The ticket was unsuccessfully appealed and has dragged on with queries etc, last heard from debt recovery agency end of 2016, then a letter from solicitor beginning of 2017 and then nothing again until just this month, "Letter before claim" from the solicitor.
I can give further details (a lot of them!) but thought I would just keep it to a brief idea of the situation. Are there any grounds for continuing to fight against a private company's ticket now it's gone this far down the line? Many thanks. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 21 May 2018 - 07:55
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 22 May 2018 - 12:42
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Which signage applied at the time of the alleged contravention?
Thats all you need "no parking..." is absolutely forbidding and does not offer a contract. |
|
|
Tue, 22 May 2018 - 19:55
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 17 May 2018 Member No.: 98,006 |
Would this be any good please?
Your ref: XXXX Dear Sirs I refer to your letter of 4th May 2018 requesting £160 payment to yourselves as a debt due to UKCPM. Liability for the debt is denied as UKCPM have never offered a contract to park. Their signs expressly forbid parking on the roadways, so no parking in the roadway is offered. Therefore no contract was offered and no contract was accepted, and there is no liability for any payment as there has been no breach of contract. I refer you to PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016] and Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] as cases in point where this is upheld. Yours faithfully Many thanks everyone. |
|
|
Tue, 22 May 2018 - 23:47
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
Not keen on this line, calling it a debt (it's not a debt):
QUOTE I refer to your letter of 4th May 2018 requesting £160 payment to yourselves as a debt due to UKCPM. I would suggest: QUOTE I refer to your unreasonable demand dated 4th May 2018 where you have processed my data as registered keeper, to harass me for a sum that I do not owe. This was no 'contract'. There was no licence to park so there can be no fee or charge to offer to allow a driver to undertake the very conduct which the landowner intends to be prohibited. Private Parking firms cannot issue penalties or pursue matters such as this, that can only (at best) be considered under the tort of trespass, whereby nominal damages would be recoverable only by the landowner.
|
|
|
Wed, 23 May 2018 - 05:38
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 17 May 2018 Member No.: 98,006 |
Thanks for your help SchoolRunMum
Of course! Nothing is owed so there is no debt. Just to clarify, this is to respond to a LBC. Should I post up the LBC? It identifies the solicitor and I was hoping to stay under the radar, but if there's no problem with this, I'll put it up. It's just that I don't think it's the solicitor who has processed the data, it would have been UKCPM in the first place, who have now passed this to the solicitor. And it's a company van, so it's the company details that have come up (although as it's a partnership, people are named). And because one of the partners wrote back appealing the PCN in the first place, they are writing to him. No driver has been identified. Is it also a bit early to start mentioning relevant cases as I did? I could leave this off. |
|
|
Wed, 23 May 2018 - 07:55
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
You respond to the solicitor as if they are tehir client, or just saty "your client" where you say "you", easy change.
|
|
|
Wed, 23 May 2018 - 17:21
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 17 May 2018 Member No.: 98,006 |
Letter adjusted as per SchoolRunMum's suggestion (thank you, SRM) and the reference to cases left off at this point:
Your ref: XXXX Dear Sirs I refer to your unreasonable demand dated 4th May 2018 where your client has processed my data as registered keeper, to harass me for a sum that I do not owe. This was no “contract”. There was no licence to park so there can be no fee or charge to offer to allow a driver to undertake the very conduct which the landowner intends to be prohibited. Private Parking firms cannot issue penalties or pursue matters such as this, that can only (at best) be considered under the tort of trespass, whereby nominal damages would be recoverable only by the landowner. Yours faithfully So have I covered everything at this stage please? Or should I at this stage be asking (or demanding) them to cease and desist? Many thanks. |
|
|
Wed, 23 May 2018 - 17:37
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 17 May 2018 Member No.: 98,006 |
Actually, should I be referring to "the company" as it's a company van owned by the partnership? So instead of "me" it's "my company", "I" is "the company".
I'm also not sure whether accessing company details as they have done (the first letter is addressed to Mr A & Mrs B C, T/A XXX, work address) is the same as accessing the details of a private individual. After my SIL submitted the appeal as a partner, they addressed letters to him, although including the company name after his name. Or am I worrying about technicalities too much? |
|
|
Wed, 23 May 2018 - 17:45
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Is it a real company? If it's just a trading name then it has no actual legal identity.
|
|
|
Wed, 23 May 2018 - 18:06
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 17 May 2018 Member No.: 98,006 |
Well I guess not as it's a partnership - it's people trading under a name as you say, jointly and severally liable unlike a limited company (insofar as my limited understanding goes )
Shall I pull out the V5C to clarify this? Or again, am I digging deeper than I need to? |
|
|
Thu, 24 May 2018 - 08:32
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Getting out your V5 is never a bad idea.
If the company has no legal identity, then you just use real names. |
|
|
Thu, 24 May 2018 - 15:27
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 17 May 2018 Member No.: 98,006 |
The V5C does indeed state two people's initials and surname T/A the business name.
But I've just realised that at that time, my SIL was not a partner so he was neither of these 2 people (UKCPM may have realised this as his initial is not the same as either of the 2 initials). So maybe adjust the letter now to read: Your ref: XXXX Dear Sirs I refer to your unreasonable demand dated 4th May 2018 where your client has processed personal data to harass the registered keeper for a sum that they do not owe. This was no “contract”. There was no licence to park so there can be no fee or charge to offer to allow a driver to undertake the very conduct which the landowner intends to be prohibited. Private Parking firms cannot issue penalties or pursue matters such as this, that can only (at best) be considered under the tort of trespass, whereby nominal damages would be recoverable only by the landowner. Yours faithfully But...having just done a bit more digging around, reading on MSE etc, I note that the LBC doesn't actually say what the money is owed for; just date, PCN number, location, charge amount, but not the reason for the charge (which is on the PCN). I could post up the redacted LBC if this would help, but maybe the solicitor doesn't have to put full details in a LBC? And it also doesn't say how they've arrived at the extra £60 - it is a "pre-determined and nominal contribution.." - I thought the PAP required them to say how the amount is calculated (pulled out of thin air by the looks of things.) Thanks. |
|
|
Thu, 24 May 2018 - 17:02
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Of course they're supposed to state what the money is due ! they don't because they don't actually know. Welcome to mail merge.
The pap for debt claims is pretty clear. If you want to have a read of it, to demand all the documents they're required to send to comply with it. |
|
|
Thu, 24 May 2018 - 18:01
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 17 May 2018 Member No.: 98,006 |
Thanks nosferatu, I did look at the PAP. But I've just re-read this, and it states:
"This Protocol applies to any business (including sole traders and public bodies) claiming payment of a debt from an individual (including a sole trader). The business will be referred to as the “creditor” and the individual will be referred to as the “debtor”. This Protocol does not apply to business-to-business debts unless the debtor is a sole trader." So it doesn't seem like there's any point following up any further about what they have omitted to include, unless I've got this completely wrong. Checked on a solicitor's website, which states it doesn't apply when "a creditor is seeking to recover liabilities from a company or a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)," but another one just states "The Debt PAP will not, therefore, apply to debts owed by companies and partnerships" (LLPs not mentioned). The partnership in question is not an LLP, just an ordinary one. |
|
|
Thu, 24 May 2018 - 18:23
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 118 Joined: 18 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,938 |
Certainly in terms of tax (other than their being two returns, of course) and liability, a partnership, as opposed to an LLP, is the same as a Sole Trader.
I would have thought this would afford you the same treatment in legal proceedings other than the joint liability? |
|
|
Fri, 25 May 2018 - 07:00
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
If your company lacks any legal idnetify, then pretty sure youre treated as an individual.
|
|
|
Fri, 25 May 2018 - 11:58
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 17 May 2018 Member No.: 98,006 |
And I've just had another thought (this is getting a bit technical here).
The van was purchased by the business by the first two partners, let's call them A & B Bloggs, before C & D joined the partnership, which is now A, B, C & D Bloggs T/A XXXX. The PCN was served after C & D joined the partnership and C responded as being the partner in the business responsible for the paperwork side of things, and thinking that it was a work van therefore a general business responsibility, but on the V5C it's only "A & B trading as XXXX" who are named as keepers. Once C responded on the appeal, every letter ever since has been addressed to C, XXXX business. Is this an error at all? If so, should we point it out? If the case goes to court, will it cause a problem? I don't want to prepare a defence only to get it all thrown out because the wrong person is being dealt with (procedural error). At what stage would a letter signed by A & B asking C to take responsibility for this be appropriate to produce? Actually it's getting very technical |
|
|
Fri, 25 May 2018 - 11:59
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
You do want it to get thrown out, because it is at their cost for the fclaim that was struck out....
Keep it simple, for now. Respond as directed. |
|
|
Fri, 25 May 2018 - 13:34
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 17 May 2018 Member No.: 98,006 |
OK, and should I include at this stage other requests like client's contract with the private land owner, copies of signs etc? Or ask for that if and when they take it further? Some of the letters on the MSE forums are including asking for this at the response to LBC stage.
|
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 22:41
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 55 Joined: 17 May 2018 Member No.: 98,006 |
In the end I wrote back just requesting a PAP compliant LBC; 2 months later, I have received their response. It's just a copy of the original LBC, the paper form of the annex 1 plus 29 FAQs relating to PCNs which helpfully tell me I don't have a chance
Would it be reasonable, at this stage, to request a copy of the original PCN, given that it's over 2 years ago that it was sent? The LBC only states the PCN number, date, location and total amount requested (which of course isn't the amount the original PCN was for). Would a court consider this sufficient? Or is now the time to complete Box D with SRM's helpful suggestion? |
|
|
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 00:02
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
It doesn't really matter what you write because this is an automated process and Gladstones never sees any UKCPM documents before it issues a claim
You could therefore simply tick Box D and write Please refer to previous correspondence 26 May 2016 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 11:17 |