Please advise on action

[Digsx]

Hello,

 

I've done all this back to front really but I've been fighting a ticket for 7 months now and on looking for help came across this site.

 

I've read loads of posts on this forum and obviously now realise what I have done is the wrong way to deal with these people but now I need some help.

 

I've naively been trying to reason with the Parking Comapny, Debt Agency and Solicitors, but it just gets increasingly worse. I know you will probably tell me I shouldnt have done that but I did - again, very naively!

 

I had some help from a friend for the solicitor who now I find out gave me a template off here to use! But they didnt know - they got it off someone else. Anyway they are being very unhelpful which i know will come as no surprise to you. As a bit of background I referred them back to the PPC saying that the matter was between me and them and was in dispute. Ive seen similar posts on here but this a bit further on and I cant see any other posts that are this far down the line.

 

The latest I have had from the solicitors is this:

 

 

Thank you for your recent email. Unfortunately, we will not refer the matter back to the client.

Firstly, I note your comment regarding the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 but to inform you that should my client have a valid claim for payment for unauthorised parking, acting as the contracted Managing site for this site, they have every right under Contract Law to request payment of the outstanding debt.

 

Our client is the contracting Managing Agent for this site which is private property. Users of the car park are allowed to park in accordance with the restrictions advertised upon the Terms and Conditions /Tariff Boards. The public are invited onto the car park on the condition they abide by the terms set out upon the displayed tariff boards.

 

The signage around the site explains the Terms and Conditions of Parking and, consequently, a contract is formed when the vehicle and driver enter upon the site.

I should also draw your attention to two aspects of case law.:

 

1) Watteau v Fenwick (1893) This establishes the existence of a principal/ agency relationship. Where the Principal (in this case the Registered keeper) is responsible for the actions of its agent (in this case the driver) In the event of non-disclosure the Principal will be liable for the charges.

2) Combined Parking Solutions v S J Thomas (200 The defendant denied or never accepted he was the driver but the court found that on the balance of probabilities he was and found in favour of the plaintiff.

Finally, xxxxx and our client have signed up to, and fully support the BPA Code of Practice for Parking Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks.

 

Please contact the office on xxxx xxxxxx with the reference above. You seem to have been declining to provide the relevant drivers details, but hopefully you will consider your actions very carefully and contact us providing these. I trust this will done, as soon as receiving this letter. If your fail to do so, we will have no alternative but to continue the action against you and additional, unnecessary legal costs will be incurred.

 

Any help is greatly received.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Rooster-UK
Removed formatting codes from text.

[crem]

Standard rubbish from their "pet solicitor" including particularly their favourite bit of BS about the Steven Thomas case.

 

It is never too late to ignore them and now would be a good time to start.

[lamma]

they lied to you. the COS case is NOT case law and Fenwick is inapplicable. usual rubbish. Planet Perky rubbish. Always a mistake to engage with them in my opinion.

[Northern_Lass]

advice is right

Edited June 17, 2009 by Northern_Lass
wrong post

[Gambling Commission Rule]

How long will Perky peddle this claptrap? I know he inhabits much of the year on another Planet but surely even he can see how dumb he looks. Where did he pull Watteau out of? It must have been a very obscure law book and it is a pity that he did not see it has NO relevance to anything to do with parking. As for Thomas, I think Perky was the driver. He has in one of his most hilarious deleriums ever pretended to be Stephen Thomas, who admitted he was the driver on here (the only reason the chump won but which he likes to forget). I would have thought someone who tells us he has a law qualification (of course you do Mr perkins says the orderly as he straps him into a straitjacket) would actually have some knowledge of the law. Perhaps if Perky goes to Pepipoo the Eagles could give him a few tips. He could shirk the pepipoo Challenge again while he is there.

[dx100uk]

How long will Perky peddle this claptrap? I know he inhabits much of the year on another Planet but surely even he can see how dumb he looks. Where did he pull Watteau out of? It must have been a very obscure law book and it is a pity that he did not see it has NO relevance to anything to do with parking. As for Thomas, I think Perky was the driver. He has in one of his most hilarious deleriums ever pretended to be Stephen Thomas, who admitted he was the driver on here (the only reason the chump won but which he likes to forget). I would have thought someone who tells us he has a law qualification (of course you do Mr perkins says the orderly as he straps him into a straitjacket) would actually have some knowledge of the law. Perhaps if Perky goes to Pepipoo the Eagles could give him a few tips. He could shirk the pepipoo Challenge again while he is there.

 

i take it we had a troll on this thread..

else what the hell is this post about????????????????

 

dx

[crem]

i take it we had a troll on this thread..

else what the hell is this post about????????????????

 

dx

see the letter in post #1

[pin1onu]

Gambling Commission Rule is only anti-perky - not a troll judging by his posts.

 

OP, I found this thread on another forum site - it is relevant to your situation. Have a look at post #11.

 

The Arkell reference is entirely appropriate to the PPC. Click here to check it for yourself.:grin:

[electron99]

Firstly, I note your comment regarding the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 but to inform you that should my client have a valid claim for payment for unauthorised parking, acting as the contracted Managing site for this site, they have every right under Contract Law to request payment of the outstanding debt.

 

Having a valid claim does not give them the right to ignore the Protection from Harassment Act, which was drawn up to prevent the extreme activities of debt collectors.

 

Report this letter to Law Society.Probably nothing will be done, but if everyone reported these letters,the Law Society would have to employ extra staff to deal with the complaints, which might just make them act.

Also if the debt is in dispute, they HAVE to refer it back to the PPC. Also report this to the Law Society.

 

Incidentally the grammar in their letter leaves a lot to be desired, which casts doubt on whether they are really solicitors.

Edited June 18, 2009 by electron99

[My Real Name]

The next step is to ignore everything but correctly stamped papers from the County Court.

 

Ignore good, ignore hard, ignore long. Just ignore.

[My Real Name]

Incidentally the grammer in their letter leaves a lot to be desired, which casts doubt on whether they are really solicitors.

You're spelling are bad.

[Digsx]

Thank you very much with this - you're a great help and inspiration to keep fighting! I will get onto the Law Society and ignore anything else. Although not looking forward to County Court papers if it gets that far - I'll be back on here if it does!!

 

Not quite sure I understand the Perky references but it sounds like its in favour of my post and all things fighting PPC's!

 

Once again, thanks.

[electron99]

You're spelling are bad.

 

Should that not be your spelling are bad .

Mine was a typo - what's your excuse:lol:

[Gambling Commission Rule]

Gambling Commission Rule is only anti-perky - not a troll judging by his posts.

 

Pay up (only joking!). Not really anti-Perky but admit to being fascinated by this misguided character, who has been on a mad crusade for at least 18 months. In that time all he has proved is what a total plonker he is. He has mentioned me by name (something about my user ID bothers him for some reason) so I thought I'd return the favour. I think he wants to get to know me better but I'm not looking for a relationship just now, old Perks.

[sameagle]

Your spelling is bad.

 

Sam

[My Real Name]

Should that not be your spelling are bad .

Mine was a typo - what's your excuse:lol:

Mine would be that it was entirely deliberate perhaps writing "Yore spelling am bad" would have been more obvious?

[Mossycat]

Mine would be that it was entirely deliberate perhaps writing "Yore spelling am bad" would have been more obvious?

 

No, some of us got it the first time!!!!

 

 

Mossy

[crem]

Wot was spelt rong? Did I mis somthing?

[Rooster-UK]

Not vrey mcuh of any ipmrotnace.