UKCPS letter - help!

[Jodieluke]

usual story, Miahs are acting as unliceneced debt collectors and not as solicitors. This is to frighten you into paying money that is not due. ask yourself why it is suddenly £250?

So, respond to Miahs saying no keeper liability so please refer the matter to the driver at the time who UKPCS are obliged to identify for themselves.

 

 

 

Something along the lines of this ericsbrother?

 

 

In association to the above reference, please note your records that there is no keeper liability, and as such, you are required to refer to the driver at the time of this alleged offence, who UKCPS are obliged to identify.

[ericsbrother]

Yes but you could use the words have failed rather than obliged, just to rub it in.

[Jodieluke]

Well, it has been quite some time - over a year to be exact, however, I have finally received further correspondence to my previous response (which they claim not to have received?) regarding this matter - any advice would be appreciated?

[Bazooka Boo]

Ignore would be my first response.

 

Can't see who has sent that as the upload isn't in PDF format so is tiny.

 

They are way way way, out of time anyway, and there is absolutely no question of any keeper liability now, so they're stuffed.

 

Who sent you this? And what are the dates on the missive?

[ericsbrother]

how do you know that they claim not to have received your letter, have you been talking to them or emailing them? If so stop it, you will drop yourself in it by doing so.

 

This is just another threatogram though, you could send the same reply as before, no keeper liability so sod off.

Well, it has been quite some time - over a year to be exact, however, I have finally received further correspondence to my previous response (which they claim not to have received?) regarding this matter - any advice would be appreciated?

[Jodieluke]

Sorry guys - I have re-scanned the original correspondence.

ukcps.pdf

[silverfox1961]

Well, this letter contains the words letter before action so on balance, they are thinking of taking court action. It seems lately that more companies are willing to waste cash on court cases just to prove they have teeth (albeit rubber)

 

To reply or not to reply. Others say ignore. I say, bite back.

 

The claim that the charge is not extravagant nor unconscionable but they have failed to mention in what aspect that statement is. The case they fail to mention was about one car park where Parking Eye paid the landowner to manage. Other sites do not do this so this statement is wrong and has been proved in other cases taken to court.

 

So, I would write back stating that as the rules on keeper liability were not followed, only the driver is liable (if at all) and should their client wish to continue this fruitless exercise then you will be defending in full.

[ericsbrother]

their other problem is that all the add on costs mentioned cannot be claimed for a charge to the keeper if they are liable as they didnt enter into the contract so these extras are subject to the distance selling regs and to the unfair contracts clauses legislation. They add them because they are working on a "no win no fee" basis that may well be illegal so they need the extra add ons to make a few quid for themselves rather than just work for free. If they do win at court and this is brought up beforehand then it becomes a phyrric victory- £100 for you to cover costs of about £250. No a good economic model and that is why the Beavis result was important to the parking co's they would only ever be able to sue you for about a fiver if they lost the commercial justifation argument. BTW that does not apply to charges issued in residential developments etc as they can nevr have that commercial interest.

[Jodieluke]

I guess my next question is should I reply or not? and if so what should my response say?

 

 

This is the initial response I complied to UKCPS when I first received notification of the PCN.

Original letter.pdf

[ericsbrother]

that is fin, you have told them what is what. Miahs are not as bad as the other idiot lawyers who issue claims with a shotgun approach and I havent seen a claim via them for ages so most likely more bark than bite. If you feel like responding just resnd them the letter you sent to UKPCS and add a hand written note that it is a copy of letter already sent so perhaps someone at Miahs could read it to their client as they plainly do not have that job skill in the people they employ (yes be rude- they look for weakness so this lets them know you arent anybodys punchbag).

It is also a paper trail to use to show reasonableness on your part and the opposite on theirs and that is important if they do decide to throw their money away.