Previously DWMB2 posted:
The important parts of the letter, regardless of the tone of language you choose to employ, are to dispute the debt, and ask the two questions posed.
So how come Gladstones refer to 2 requests from you to erase data? I can see reference to your previous addresses but this is addressed separately in their reply.
What did you send?
Until we seewhat you wrote it would IMO be premature to respond. Let's get clarity about the paper trail.
Dear Sirs,
Re: Your Ref. ##########
I acknowledge receipt of your response but note that you have entirely failed to address my two specific questions under the Pre-Action Protocol, which I am entitled to before you issue any claim.
For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat:1. Does the additional £70 represent a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is it inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, why am I being asked to cover the operator’s VAT?
2. Is the principal PCN sum being claimed as damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
It is embarrassing that, as a layperson, I have to remind you, a supposedly professional litigator, of the following:1. Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
Paragraph 3.1 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims sets out the information that must be provided by the creditor, including a breakdown of the debt and any charges being claimed.
2. CPR 1.1 (Overriding Objective)
CPR 1.1 imposes an obligation on all parties to help the court further the overriding objective, which is to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. By failing to engage in meaningful dialogue or answer reasonable pre-action questions, you are acting contrary to this overriding objective.
3. CPR 3.1(2)(m) (Case Management Powers)
CPR 3.1(2)(m) allows the court to make any order it considers necessary or appropriate to ensure fair case management, including striking out or staying claims where a party has not complied with pre-action procedures.
4. Potential Sanctions (CPR 44.11)
CPR 44.11 allows the court to penalise a party for misconduct, including failure to comply with pre-action protocols.
Failure to respond to these questions will result in my seeking appropriate sanctions from the court for unreasonable behaviour, should you be so intellectually malnourished as to proceed with this baseless claim without addressing them.
I await your prompt and substantive response.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
You don't argue anything at this point. Respond to the LoC with the following:QuoteDear Sirs,
Your Ref. ############
Gladstone's Solicitors Ltd.
Claimant: Parkit Management Ltd
I refer to your 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:
[MY ADDRESS]
The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.
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?
I await your response to my questions which I am entitle to answer as per the PAP.
Yours faithfully,
[your name]
When they respond, you report Gladstones Solicitors to HMRC for suspected VAT fraud as they are pocketing the VAT element on the added fake £70 DRA costs. Then, wait for the claim form to come through from the CNBC.
Dear Sirs,
Your Ref. ############
Gladstone's Solicitors Ltd.
Claimant: Parkit Management Ltd
I refer to your 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:
[MY ADDRESS]
The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.
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?
I await your response to my questions which I am entitle to answer as per the PAP.
Yours faithfully,
[your name]
As predicted. So, no surprise there.
You can waste your time on an IAS appeal, for what it's worth. Less than 5% of succeeding with that but some will advise that you give it a go.
If that fails, no big deal. It means nothing. You then have to wait and see if/when the operator decides whether to try and pursue you through the small clams track at the county court.
At least the county court is the ultimate dispute resolution service. A judge would decide whether you owe them a debt or not. Even if you lost, there is no danger of a CCJ as long as the amount in the judgment is paid in full within 28 days of judgment.
In the majority of cases, they are either won or more likely discontinued. All you have to do is ignore any and all debt collector letters. We don't need to see those because they are useless and are simply designed to get the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance.
What I don't understand is, as the carpark owner, why can't he just cancel it? He's making it sound as if he has no say over the carpark that he owns.Keep on at him about cancelling it. Some landowners sign absolutely terrible contracts with these parking companies. Some charge them for cancellations, for example.
What I don't understand is, as the carpark owner, why can't he just cancel it? He's making it sound as if he has no say over the carpark that he owns.Keep on at him about cancelling it. Some landowners sign absolutely terrible contracts with these parking companies. Some charge them for cancellations, for example.
None of which we will know unless the OP gets hold of it - so if they'll share it, why not?
Of course, getting the landowner to cancel is always preferable.
Forget CCTV for any “evidence”. It cannot be used for this as it is not approved and it is not a criminal matter.Does it need to be approved to be admissible as evidence? It's probably of limited value, but getting a copy of it, if the landowner will share it, might be worth it, to back up the point that the driver did indeed pay, alongside their witness statement stating the same.
Thanks, have modified my post!Maybe, but you didn't fix it.
Thanks, have modified my post!Maybe, but you didn't fix it.
I suggest you edit that post so as not to give away driver ID as presumably the driver paid on the day? Unless by your 'careful wording' you have already told the parking company in your appeal as you suggest you did?
The landowner can usually tell the paring company to cancel, but it may cost them (depends on the contract) so will be loathe to do so. many landowners only realise how bad the contract they signed is (for them) when they come to stop their customers being fleeced!
I don't understand - can't the carpark owner, who pays Park-It, be able to cancel the PCN?Depends what the terms of the contract he signed with the parking company are.