*****The Ãœber Template Letter....*****

[petej2811]

Moderators - if you could put this at the top as a sticky I would be much obliged.

 

This is the template letter I have been sending to people who ask for it. I recently indicated that I would not publish it here. I have since decided that it is no great issue for the content to be in the public domain as all the information contained therein is available on the internet to anyone and everyone.

 

This was written for me by a former city commercial solicitor and was nipped and tucked here and there by me to see that it suits its purpose.

 

You use this template at your own risk. I urge you to research the content and UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS ACTUALLY MEANS BEFORE YOU SEND IT!

 

Before sending this please edit it appropriately so that it doesn't look like you just stuck your name onto a template. Many paragraphs will not apply to you so read this through. If a paragraph does not apply to you then remove it (or risk looking stupid).

 

We've had a lot of success with this template. I'll be revising it in the new year, but for now here it is -

 

"I am writing to you, INSERT PARKING COMPANY NAME HERE (“you”) with reference to PCN number INSTER TICKET NUMBER HERE dated XXth MONTH, 200X (“the PCN”), in which you issue me with a fine of £XX, increasing to £XX if I fail to pay before INSERT THEIR DEADLINE HERE (“the Fine”). The PCN was issued to me, in whose name the vehicle, registration number ADD VEHICE REG NO HERE, is registered.

 

I can state at this time that I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time you allege it was parked on the property referred to in the PCN as your Client’s Private Property (“the Property”). In order to progress any claim you will need to furnish me with evidence as to the identity of the driver. Should you fail to provide this, I am prepared to make a formal request to you, and if necessary to ADD LANDOWNER NAME HERE, under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the DPA”), to see all information, held on any CCTV system and in hard and soft copy, that you allege is held about me. As you are doubtless aware any contract (“the contract”) that exists would be between the driver and the landowner only. As I, the registered keeper was not the driver I am not a party to any such contract and therefore am not liable for the fine resulting from said contract.

 

 

Please also provide evidence of the loss that ADD NAME OF LANDOWNER HERE, as the owner of the Property, has suffered (or, to the extent that you act as a principal rather than as agent for ADD LANDOWNER NAME HERE, that you have suffered) as a result of the alleged contravention of parking conditions set forth in the PCN, which I in no way admit (“the Alleged Contravention”). In this context I note that:

 

a. no towing or clamping charges have been incurred in connection with the Alleged Contravention;

b. there is no suggestion in the PCN that the car park was full at the time of the Alleged Contravention;

c. no charge is levied for use of the Property, therefore neither you nor the land owner have suffered any lost car parking revenue as a result of the Alleged Contravention;

d. nowhere do you or the land owner stipulate that users of the car park are required to purchase anything in the store;

e. the fine levied is on a sliding scale, increasing as time elapses, and thus cannot be said to be calculated to reflect a true loss. Any loss suffered cannot increase with time.

 

Unless you are able to show that a loss equal to the value of the Fine has been suffered as a result of the Alleged Contravention, the PCN is legally void. First, it constitutes an illegal penalty under the common law of contract and is therefore unenforceable. Second, it breaches several provisions of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and related official guidance from the OFT and is therefore unenforceable. Furthermore, the parking space utilised is subject no a rental agreement between the land owner and (INSERT YOURS OR YOUR SON’S NAME HERE). Therefore the revenue generated by the space remains subject to a monthly agreement and no detriment has been suffered as a result of any alleged contravention.

 

Further, at no time to my knowledge has a parking ticket relating to the Alleged Contravention been placed on the vehicle. This breaches DVLA guidelines and as such, renders the obtaining of my details from the DVLA illegitimate and unfair processing of personal data for the purposes of the DPA.

 

The manner in which any CCTV equipment used on the Property in connection with the Alleged Contravention also breaches the “CCTV Code of Practice” issued by the data protection Information Commissioner. (IF THEY USE CCTV AND THERE ARE NO SIGNS LEAVE THIS IN, OTHERWISE REMOVE IT)

 

In addition, the purported official nature of the PCN contravenes the Administration of Justice Act 1970 in that you are impliedly using the PCN falsely to represent that you are authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment.

 

Unless and until you provide to my satisfaction the evidence requested in this letter I dispute the Fine and all related fines, fees and charges (together, “the Debt”) and am aware that accordingly, it is unlawful for you to pass on the matter to a debt collector.

 

I would also add for your information that the PCN is inaccurate. In what I understand to be a purported copy of the notice on display at the Property, as set out in the PCN, a 2 hour time limit is referred to (see enclosed copy of the PCN). The time limit specified at the Property is in fact 3 hours.

 

More so, on the date of the alleged contravention I had cause to have a conversation with one of your company’s representatives. During that conversation I asked that individual if he had taken the details of my vehicle for the purpose of issuing any invoice. The individual made it clear that they had not. Therefore at this point I view your efforts to claim any figure from me as unlawful under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Cleary as your agent intimated that my details had not be taken and no action would be taken this represents a promise. In such a case you are bound by hat promise and have no right to claim monies based on any alleged contract constructed in those circumstances.

 

I require that you either provide me with all the evidence requested in the second and third paragraphs of this letter or you revoke the PCN and cancel the Debt. Any contact from you that does not fully fulfil to my satisfaction both of these requests (“Further Contact”) shall be unsolicited and unwelcome and I shall have no hesitation in contacting the police in relation to your contravention of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. In the event of any Further Contact I shall also lodge formal complaints with the OFT and the Information Commissioner and shall contact every consumer body, television programme, magazine and website I can think of.

 

Furthermore, as a private individual I have had to waste time, effort and resources in dealing with the spurious and unlawful matters referred to in the PCN and in the event of any Further Contact I will issue you with a demand for expenses in respect of my wasted costs and expenses in dealing with the matter. Your response to this letter will be deemed to accept, by your actions, a charge of £50 for my time and efforts in researching, reading and replying as regards this matter and an invoice for immediate payment will be issued. Should you fail to pay such an invoice you will be prosecuted through my local county court for the amount.

 

You will also note that I dispute this debt, per the guidance of the Office of Fair Trading (“the OFT”) this prohibits you from passing this matter to a third party debt collector. Should you be unwilling or unable to present evidence as detailed above then I challenge you to take legal action immediately. Your efforts to artificially inflate any alleged debt by the sending of multiple letters will not be tolerated.

 

Yours faithfully, ..........."

 

 

 

 

Any questions, queries or problems then get back to me. My contact details are on the guide at the top of the page.

 

PJ

[green_and_mean]

The use of the term PCN, 'contravention' and 'fine' is incorrect in a civil parking dispute and I'm surprised a solicitor would not be aware of this? The letter is not suitable as a template as it states various senarios that will not be generally applicable to most civil parking charges. You also state you was not the driver on the date in question which is not usually the case 9 times out of ten the driver is the owner making the template letter useless to most people.

[Michael Browne]

Before sending this please edit it appropriately so that it doesn't look like you just stuck your name onto a template. Many paragraphs will not apply to you so read this through. If a paragraph does not apply to you then remove it (or risk looking stupid).

 

Well he did include this caveat.

Maybe it should be more prominent

[green_and_mean]

The letter implies no 'PCN' was issued to the car therefore it must have been posted. If that is the case then why was he discussing the matter on the day of the alleged parking charge with someone from the company? If it was on the phone how did he know he had got a ticket if it was at the scene he is lying by saying he was not the driver ....

More so, on the date of the alleged contravention I had cause to have a conversation with one of your company’s representatives. During that conversation I asked that individual if he had taken the details of my vehicle for the purpose of issuing any invoice.

[Michael Browne]

If that is the case then why was he discussing the matter on the day of the alleged parking charge with someone from the company?

I'm guessing here, but isn't it the case at places like BP and Mcdonalds at Gatwick, there is someone at the entrance noting down car reg no's. So I assume that's what he means.

But I agree it's ambiguous.

[petej2811]

The letter implies no 'PCN' was issued to the car therefore it must have been posted. If that is the case then why was he discussing the matter on the day of the alleged parking charge with someone from the company? If it was on the phone how did he know he had got a ticket if it was at the scene he is lying by saying he was not the driver ....

More so, on the date of the alleged contravention I had cause to have a conversation with one of your company’s representatives. During that conversation I asked that individual if he had taken the details of my vehicle for the purpose of issuing any invoice.

 

What are you actually talking about? Some imaginary scenario that you run over and over in your head, perhaps?

[petej2811]

The use of the term PCN, 'contravention' and 'fine' is incorrect in a civil parking dispute and I'm surprised a solicitor would not be aware of this? The letter is not suitable as a template as it states various senarios that will not be generally applicable to most civil parking charges. You also state you was not the driver on the date in question which is not usually the case 9 times out of ten the driver is the owner making the template letter useless to most people.

 

I think in future I should write a version of my opinions/advice etc for general consumption and then a simple version for you.

 

I swear you don't read the whole thing before you lurch forward to put your feet in your mouth.

 

Look -

 

"Before sending this please edit it appropriately so that it doesn't look like you just stuck your name onto a template. Many paragraphs will not apply to you so read this through. If a paragraph does not apply to you then remove it (or risk looking stupid)."

 

You could look stupid by sending the unedited letter, or by not reading about the effects of sending an unedited letter before going off on one.

 

Those words have no place in a civil dispute, yet so many PPCs see fit to use them. You must, to make your message heard, speak to the idiot in his own language.

 

I said it once, I'll say it again. When I read your replies its like taking questions from a class full of eleven year old children. Please read things fully and think about them before making any future comments.

 

Thanks,

 

PJ

[green_and_mean]

What are you actually talking about? Some imaginary scenario that you run over and over in your head, perhaps?

 

 

No the scenario stated in your letter!

[green_and_mean]

You have still not explained how or why you spoke to a company representative about your vehicle if you was not there at the time or aware a 'pcn' had been issued? Please refrain from insulting me or calling me names as it implies it is in fact you that has the mentality of an eleven year old not myself. If you cannot stand contructive critisism then maybe you should refrain from posting?

[petej2811]

No the scenario stated in your letter!

 

Its a template. You edit it to suit the circumstances in your particular instance. That's what templates are for.

[petej2811]

You have still not explained how or why you spoke to a company representative about your vehicle if you was not there at the time or aware a 'pcn' had been issued? Please refrain from insulting me or calling me names as it implies it is in fact you that has the mentality of an eleven year old not myself. If you cannot stand contructive critisism then maybe you should refrain from posting?

 

I didn't and nor am I going to. The clue is in the title really, isn't it?

 

It's a template letter. This is not based on an actual event. Indeed, I made mention that the body and bulk of the text was written for me. So why would you ask me who I was talking to when HAD YOU READ EVERYTHING, you'd realise that *ahem* its a template and that it was written for me by someone else.

 

I fear the insults are justified. If you don't like it then perhaps you should read matters in their entirety and consider everything before passing comment. This way you won't misunderstand things, get the wrong end of the stick, run for miles with the stick and then look stupid.

 

Constructive criticism is to be welcomed. The driveling of someone who didn't read the material doesn't really count as that.

 

PJ

[green_and_mean]

It does not matter if it was for you or anyone else it does not make sense and is factually incorrect in its terminology.

[legaladviser]

A good letter. Needs a bit of tightening up but should make them think twice. Never mind the carpers. How a forum about consumer rights got packed with patently anti-motorist, pro-private parking ****** company types is a question I would really like to know the answer to.

[green_and_mean]

A good letter. Needs a bit of tightening up but should make them think twice. Never mind the carpers. How a forum about consumer rights got packed with patently anti-motorist, pro-private parking ****** company types is a question I would really like to know the answer to.

 

Of course I forgot private parking companies can now issue PCNs and fines I forgot the law how changed I can see why you are called legaladviser lol!

[legaladviser]

Green and mean, you don't half live up to your name. Did a rogue driver run over your cat? I just wonder where that well of ill will towards the motoring populace comes from.

[petej2811]

It does not matter if it was for you or anyone else it does not make sense and is factually incorrect in its terminology.

 

Coming from someone who doesn't read things properly and has a fractured sense of logic you'll understand if I don't rush to sort it.

 

PJ

[petej2811]

Of course I forgot private parking companies can now issue PCNs and fines I forgot the law how changed I can see why you are called legaladviser lol!

 

My sarcasm really is better than yours. That was a woeful and childish effort. Please never let it happen again.

 

PJ

[saintly_1]

Can we all please try and keep the thread civil please

[battyboomboom]

Nothing criminal in 'ere mate

[Sidewinder]

PMSL

 

Before sending this please edit it appropriately so that it doesn't look like you just stuck your name onto a template. Many paragraphs will not apply to you so read this through. If a paragraph does not apply to you then remove it (or risk looking stupid).

Even I understood that bit.

[demon_x_slash]

Coming from someone completely impartial towards both posters, as I respect both in their own fields, I would have to say that we need to keep the definitions clear across the board, regardless of how the cowboy companies term their Letters-O-Threats. We're always very careful in dealing with the banks to keep to unlawful vs. illegal, and penalty vs. 'fee', if only for the clear distinction in our own minds. I would vote in this case to do the same for the private parking issue; IMO 'PCN' and 'fine' should be kept for criminal or Council tickets, and 'ticket' and 'penalty' for private. We've accused both the cowboy companies and the official ticketers over and over in the past of being imprecise in their wording, and indeed benefited from their being so. Let's not lose the advantage of intelligent precision that has served everyone so well so far...

[Rob S]

The use of the term PCN, 'contravention' and 'fine' is incorrect in a civil parking dispute and I'm surprised a solicitor would not be aware of this?

 

It's the parking companies who use terms such as "PCN", "contravention" and "fine", so it seems logical to me to respond to them in similar terms when they send out their "notices".

[Michael Browne]

It's the parking companies who use terms such as "PCN", "contravention" and "fine",

Because they like to imply that these are lawful. By using similar terms you are tacitly agreeing that's what they are. Much better to call them exactly what they are: tickets and penalties.

[petej2811]

Strictly speaking they aren't tickets, per se. They are invoices.

[Guest interesting]

I think its a poor template letter and not worthy of being a sticky.