Hey, can I join your club? Victim of NCP attempted scam!

[Bimmer_boi]

Well, I received this, which I thought was a bit unusual for several reasons. Firstly, it states I was recently sent a NTRK, which I wasn't, this is the first corespondence Ive seen, secondly, the letter arrived the day after the impossibly short 7 days in which I had to act. Secondly, it states that if I want a copy of the ticket that was never attached, I have to pay £10:|

 

I wrote a letter in response saying that I hadn't received the stated correspondance and that I would be contesting this very strongly. I was careful not to state who the driver was and that I would require evidence of the "offence" being commited.

 

Today, they rang my Dads house and left an answerphone message saying "I had to get in touch"

 

You will note that the date of the letters is exactly as they "run out" of time, althoug, they are obviously posted with as little time as possible in which to act. A basic check at the Solicitors Regulation Authority using the number at the bottom of the letter returns no results, which I thought strange.

 

What is the next step? Im not ringing them back, I have sent a letter stating that its the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Do I wait for them to send me a letter back?

Edited December 28, 2008 by Bimmer_boi

[lamma]

its all rubbish. ignore them but by all means complain to TS etc. see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/164651-problems-ppcs-face.html?highlight=problems+ppc+face

[Guest Ting]

A basic check at the Solicitors Regulation Authority using the number at the bottom of the letter returns no results, which I thought strange.

 

I understand that is because they are not actually a Solicitor (I hear). Other members her know more about it.

 

Why are you communicating with them? You are just encouraging them.

[Bimmer_boi]

I understand that is because they are not actually a Solicitor (I hear). Other members her know more about it.

 

Why are you communicating with them? You are just encouraging them.

 

I was advised by a trainee barrister not to simply ignore the letters. In His letter Micael Sobell claims to be a solicitor trading under the name of Graham White

[crem]

The Roxburghe letter refers to the "Penalty Contravention Charge Notice (PCCN)". Clearly, as private companies cannot issue penalties, they have no intention of taking that anywhere near a court.

[crem]

I was advised by a trainee barrister not to simply ignore the letters. In His letter Micael Sobell claims to be a solicitor trading under the name of Graham White

 

and why did the trainee barrister advise that?

[Lula]

how can a solicitor be allowed to trade under a different name?

[Bimmer_boi]

and why did the trainee barrister advise that?

 

No Idea really. Im merely a humble IT contractor, so I can only give advice on computers and servers.

 

What I also am is highly vindictive and should this progress to harassment stage, I will investigate all possible avenues into causing as much hassle for them as possible.

[lamma]

H White is a trading name owned by M Sobell (who works/ed for Hackney Council I think). Roxburghe use that name. At one stage these letters did not mention M Sobell at all, that detail has been added. I have read that Sobell's licensing of the name to Roxburghe was a breach of law society regs and he had his name removed from the Law Society Register. Maybe he is now back on the register and that is why the name Sobell now appears. G White appears though The Law Society - Find a solicitor maybe it is again time for someone in receipt of one of these letters to write to the law society (where the 'Warrant issue fee' from as a part of the claim I have no idea - but would send copies of the whole pape rchain to the SRA pointing out the all regs broken, assumed RK liability etc etc)

[Guest Ting]

how can a solicitor be allowed to trade under a different name?

 

So I hear, correct me if I'm wrong, he bought the name.

[neil24103]

Well, I received this, which I thought was a bit unusual for several reasons. Firstly, it states I was recently sent a NTRK, which I wasn't, this is the first corespondence Ive seen, secondly, the letter arrived the day after the impossibly short 7 days in which I had to act. Secondly, it states that if I want a copy of the ticket that was never attached, I have to pay £10:|

 

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc345/jethro_jones/DSC02125.jpg

 

and the reverse:

 

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc345/jethro_jones/DSC02126.jpg

 

Then on the 10th, I received this:

 

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc345/jethro_jones/DSC02124.jpg

 

I wrote a letter in response saying that I hadn't received the stated correspondance and that I would be contesting this very strongly. I was careful not to state who the driver was and that I would require evidence of the "offence" being commited.

 

Today, they rang my Dads house and left an answerphone message saying "I had to get in touch"

 

You will note that the date of the letters is exactly as they "run out" of time, althoug, they are obviously posted with as little time as possible in which to act. A basic check at the Solicitors Regulation Authority using the number at the bottom of the letter returns no results, which I thought strange.

 

What is the next step? Im not ringing them back, I have sent a letter stating that its the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Do I wait for them to send me a letter back?

total rubbish.now you have contacted them they.ll think they have hooked a fish.just ignore all letters you get.but keep them safe. you may need them if you want to them report to the police .what you have got is a invioce NOTE A UNENFORCEABLE INVIOCEAT THAT. ITS JUST A LEGAL [problem]. BUT THEY CANT MAKE YOU PAY OR TELL THEM WHO WAS DRIVING AT THE TIME. AS ITS THE DRIVER WHO HAS BEEN DEEMED TO AGREED TO THE CONTRACT FOR PARKING THEREAS IVE SAID TOTAL RUBBISH

[Bimmer_boi]

H White is a trading name owned by M Sobell (who works/ed for Hackney Council I think). Roxburghe use that name. At one stage these letters did not mention M Sobell at all, that detail has been added. I have read that Sobell's licensing of the name to Roxburghe was a breach of law society regs and he had his name removed from the Law Society Register. Maybe he is now back on the register and that is why the name Sobell now appears. G White appears though The Law Society - Find a solicitor maybe it is again time for someone in receipt of one of these letters to write to the law society (where the 'Warrant issue fee' from as a part of the claim I have no idea - but would send copies of the whole pape rchain to the SRA pointing out the all regs broken, assumed RK liability etc etc)

 

I like the sound of this. Could you mind writing a draft letter outlining the broken regulations and I will do my damndest to put this joker out of business.

[lamma]

look at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/164651-problems-ppcs-face.html?highlight=problems+ppc+face and FAQs - PPCs - fighting back. The forces are aligned

[Bimmer_boi]

Well, after a period of quiet, I received not one but two letters. The first arrived 28th November with a postmark on the envelope of 24th November and a date on the letter of the 20th from Roxburghe drawing my attention to two aspects of case law. Namely:

 

Watteau v fenwick (1893) and Combined Parking Solutions v S J Thomas (2008)

 

I've been able to find out about the first, which is complete rubbish when applied to this, but I haven't been able to find out about CPS v S J Thomas, can someone with access to Butterworths enlighten me?

 

This letter ends with a stark warning about considering my actions carefully and provide the driver details by return of post. If I fail to do so, they will have no alternative but to continue the action against me. This letter is from Steve Dargonne.

 

The second is from Michael Sobell again, telling me I have a final warning that despite many (really???) attempts to obtain payment from me, I have chosen to withold settlement of the amount £140. Im advised that if Im in any doubt as to the seriousness of the situation, I should seek independant legal advice as the consequences of litigation can be far-reaching, such as:

 

Substantial legal costs and statutory interest being added

My name being listed on the register of judgments affecting my chances of further credit in the future

Seizure of my assets by bailiffs

An order to obtain information from judgment debtor

 

It is my responsibility to repay this account immediately and they are putting me on notice that they will refer the matter in seven days.

 

Im assured "that this matter will not go away without solution or resolution"

 

They then ask that if I do not wish to incur the consequences of COURT ACTION (their emboldening) I ,must pay the amount claimed immediately.

 

Continue to ignore or shall I send the harassment letter?

[Al27]

CPS won a case earlier in the year against Stephen Thomas. Nothing in small claims is guaranteed and there's always a small percentage chance that the PPC will win. Always has and always will be.

 

Despite the fact they made just around £150 after all that effort and time, and have lost cases in the past - it's purpose is merely a propaganda one (no business is going to travel around the country trying to win court cases that have a low chance of success).

 

Now the PPCs have clubbed together and devised a template rejection letter which talks about Stephen's case, complete with lies about it being a precedent.

 

Ignore both letters.

[lamma]

"case law" - did they use that term ? if so its complete crap. Small claims civil cases cannot make law - there is no "case law". Roxburghe governed by, inter alia, the CSA and this letter sounds like it breaches Consumer regs so is unlawful and so also against CSA CoP. report them to CSA if they said it was case law.

show us pictures of this letter please - suitably washed of personal details.

[pin1onu]

Now the PPCs have clubbed together and devised a template rejection letter which talks about Stephen's case, complete with lies about it being a precedent.

 

You notice that they don't mention the Excel case which was lost by Excel in March.

 

It it very much selective propaganda and totally misleading.

 

As lamma has said a breach of Consumer Regs. Roxburghe and the solicitor are acting as DCAs and should under the OFT guidelines refer the matter back to their client.

[Bimmer_boi]

Here are the letters

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2008 by Bimmer_boi

[crem]

Bimmer boi, you should re-edit those letters straight away and delete ANY reference to you personally. (Like your name would be a good start! !

[lamma]

the comments apply. CPS v Thomas is not case law. CSA complaint for them. Roxburghe also give the game away as operatng for the managing agent - NOT the landowner also the 'substantial legal costs' is plainly wrong - its small claims court ! SRA complaint for them

[Bimmer_boi]

Bimmer boi, you should re-edit those letters straight away and delete ANY reference to you personally. (Like your name would be a good start! !

 

I don't know what you mean:rolleyes:

 

the comments apply. CPS v Thomas is not case law. CSA complaint for them. Roxburghe also give the game away as operatng for the managing agent - NOT the landowner also the 'substantial legal costs' is plainly wrong - its small claims court ! SRA complaint for them

 

Have you contact details for the CSA? Im already speaking to someone at the SRA