Miah Solicitors, UKCPS at it again. Please help me with the response letter

[michael.uwt]

Hello you wonderful wonderful people

 

Let me cut straight to the chase

 

I parked in a private land which i have done a number of times while going to the bank in town.

I did not see any visible signs with terms and condition only a worn out red paint on the wall with the words private parking.

 

I comeback half an hour later and lo and behold i have parking notice slapped on the windscreen of my car.

 

 

As advised by friends and people on forums I chose to ignore it.

Got a few letters and chose to ignore them as well.

Then as usual with these private companies i got my case passed onto a 'debt recovery team' Miah solicitors in this case.

 

The letter is pretty much as a copy and paste of all the other letters from miah solicitors people have posted on the forums.

£100 owed to UKCPS, £25 admin, and £150 for legal costs to these culprits.

 

Same idle threat stating

'this letter before action is being sent to you in accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct contained in the Civil Procedure Rules.

In particular, we refer you to paragraph 4 of the said pratice direction concerning Court's powers to impose sanctions for failing to comply with its provisions.

 

Take note, that if we do not recieve any payment or contact you from within 14 days of the date of this letter,

we will take our clients instructions regarding how they wish to proceed which may include considering issuing 'legal procedings'

 

Here is my response letter gathered from information off the forums and watching a youtube channel called DerpJD

 

To whom it may concern

I am writing to you in response to the letter received regarding an alleged private parking ticket by your affiliate UKCPS.

May I first of make you aware that I am well educated in the matter of private land tickets and the legalities.

 

Before your idle threats can even be taken seriously you will need to provide me with the following;

 

1) Proof that Mr XXXXX XXXXXX was the driver at the alleged time.

 

2) Receipts of the legal charges that have been added by you of £150 with VAT.

 

3) A bill. The following are not bills, a parking charge notification, a statement, a charge certificate, not a notice, not an invoice.

 

3) Proof of a contractual agreement between me and your client.

Under all commercial and civil laws, in order for man/women to take a complaint to a court or to a magistrate

to make a claim for a court hearing tribunal/trial then there must be a documented contract with full disclosure

by both parties with terms and conditions, signed with wetted ink (not a PDF signature) with human names and the date of signature.

As you are well aware of no contract existed.

 

4) As advised by a solicitor in a free consultation, your letter has no reverse liability so it is better off throwing in the bin.

For your letter to have reverse liability you will need a wetted signature with a human name printed.

You know this will leave you opened to be counter sued so you have opted not to do so. S

o your letters will remain meaningless and empty as long as you continue this practice.

 

5) If you have gotten that far then I will also need evidence of damage/loss of property during the parking

of this vehicle at the alleged duration by the LAND OWNER to justify the fraudulent parking ticket.

 

I will also like to state this is not an appeal this is a rebuttal.

Any private parking companies that try to apply levy onto people in this exemplary matter is null-in-void.

The only way you can get any squeaky leverage to go to a court or to get legal action

in any way is to ascertain/obtain an appeal in response to the INVOICE.

 

This invoice by UKCPS will never be paid no matter how much you escalate the price until all these lawful conditions are met.

Have a nice day

Regards

 

 

 

(i put my own copy and paste signature from google images just like they do)

 

Il be waiting for your wisdom Slick

[dx100uk]

where the hell did you get that load of twaddle from?

[dx100uk]

follow this thread

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?456065-Miah-Solicitors-threatening-court-on-March-2015-UKCPS-ticket(2-Viewing)-nbsp&p=4826875#post4826875

 

 

and the council bit at the end regarding planning for signs

[ericsbrother]

The chances are it is all unenforceable due to defects with the NTK and various other things

so tell us how you got the first ticket, what and when as a NTK etc.

 

To beat these bandits you must give a considered response to create a paper trail and to show you have not been unreasonable by not paying/answering previous correspondence.

 

Do you have the ticket and the other correspondence?

If not the first action should be to see whether planning permission was granted for the signage.

 

Check this with the local council planning dept,

the signs are a shoo in but either the parking co or the landlord must have applied.

 

They are not just allowed under deemed consent like fire exit signs or bus stops despite some parking co's claims that they are.

 

If no PP then a simple letter to Miah's stating that as there is no PP no contract can ever be formed as a consequence do to their criminality.

 

They would be stupid to then continue and the paper trail will cause a judge to be rather miffed at the waste of their (and your) time.

[Bazooka Boo]

Please tell me you didn't send that FMOTL missive? It most certainly will not help you.

[michael.uwt2]

Hi

 

First of all let me explain why ive made another account. Whenever i attempted to login the site would for a moment say welcome and i will be redirected and then it sends me back into log in page over and over again. Ive tried everything including resetting the password twice. very frustrating but i do apologize

 

I have not sent the Letter of yet. I have checked on my local council planning dept website and it appears that no planning permission is given at that address.

I recieved the ticket on my car on 26/05/2015 12:20pm. I received the NTK on the 25/06/2015/. I do not have the ticket that was slapped on my windscreen but i do have the NTK and another letter titled 'NOTIFICATION LETTER' on 28/07/2015

[michael.uwt2]

the closes thing i found to planning permission on the address which was 5 Sackville Street Bradford is' Cov To Car Park 25/27 Sackville Street Bradford' which is dated in 1978.

So am I free to post a letter saying

 

Bradford Council have confirmed that UKCPS have not been granted planning permission for the signs for the car park under the advertising display regulations of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

 

The signage is therefore illegal and therefore the driver has not entered into a contract with UKCPS'

[michael.uwt]

Finally got my original account working. I confirm that the above was written by me.

 

I just rang my local council to double check and they do not have any planning permission listed on records for the alleged address.

 

However I was told if the land is private they may not need to ask permission if the owner of the land agreed. Is this true?

 

The lady I was speaking to sounded clueless as me so can anyone help on this?

[dx100uk]

As post 4 and that's other thread I linked you too

 

Dx

[ericsbrother]

OK so fire off a short letter saying that UKPCS doesnt have PP for their signage

so no contract can formed due to their criminality.

No further correspondence will be entered into.

 

if you pad it out it makes it look like you are uncertain and invites more correspondence

where they will eventually trick you into saying black is white.

Dont fall for it.

[michael.uwt]

Thanks for the help guys so here is what im now deciding to send.

To whom it may concern

Bradford council have confirmed that ukcps have not been granted planning for the signage of 5 Sackville Street. Therefore the signage is illegal and no contract can be formed due to your client's criminality. No further corrospondence will be entered into.

 

Yours sincerly

 

And thats it guys I just hope they dont argue saying its an agreement between ukcps and the land owner etc. I dont know how valid this argument will be but lets jut hope they go back into the hole they crawled out of.

[dx100uk]

not reading things properly tonight are we...

 

it matters not if they had a contract

 

the erection of their signs has no planning .. no matter who put them up:lol:

[ericsbrother]

the more you write

the more they think you are uncertain of what you say

and the greater the likihood they will continue to badger you

as they thibk you are likely to pay up if they keep bluffing.

 

 

a very simple statement of the kind you have suggested is best,

 

 

they cant pick holes in it and to claim otherwise would be very foolish.

 

If they do write back, dont forget that they are acting as debt collectors

and not solicitors so dont eneter into a debate with them.

[michael.uwt]

Hi guys

 

Ive got a reply from Miah Solicitors after that short simple letter i sent them about illegal signage. Apparently they think i am attempting an appeal.

 

This is what i sent them

 

To whom it may concern

 

Bradford Council have confirmed that UKCPS have not been granted planning permission for the signage of 5 Sackville Street.

Therefore the Signage is illegal and no contract can be formed due to your client’s criminality. No further correspondence will be entered into.

 

Best regards

 

This the reply i just got today. it reads as follows.

 

We refer to the above matter and your correspondence received 2nd December 2015.

 

Our client has confirmed that it is too late for you to make an appeal at this stage.

With regards to when our client should deal with appeals;

our client is required to follow set rules,

such rules are governed by their trade association,

with sanctions imposed upon them,

should they fail to comply.

 

Our client will not send any documentation or further information in relation to this matter until directed to do so by the court.

Our Client is, however, mindful of the requirement to ensure that attempts are made to settle the claim before issuing legal proceedings.

 

We have therefore been authorized by our client to accept £185.00 in full and final settlement of the sum

due providing payment is received within 14 days of the date of this letter.

 

We will not enter into any further correspondence regarding any appeal of fact or circumstance

 

If you would struggle financially to pay the full sum in one payment please contact our office as we are able to accept payment by way of installments,

however, the full amount of £275.00 will be due and owing.

 

Then it states the details of which bank to make payment to bla bla.

 

Then it reads on the next page

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE

 

TM Solicitors are acting for their client in the capacity of litigator .

Both our Client and we are providing enclosed images in relation to the vent which occurred on the date and time stamped on the images.

These images are considered to be personal data under the Data Protection Act (1998)

and as such must not be used outside of the reason they have been supplied,

which occurred around the date and time stamped on the enclosed images.

 

 

Should you use these images for any other reason than stated, you will be in contravention of the Data Protection Act (1998).

 

Please note the enclosed images do not identify the driver or any other living individual as defined under the Data Protection Act (1998)

under Protection of Freedom Act (2012)

 

 

It is the registered keepers responsibility to identify the driver if they so wish.

However, if they choose not to name the driver, under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

they will be responsible for the amount of the fee payable as shown on the Notice to Keeper.

 

These images are provided the the Registered Keeper, as identified by the DVLA, or the driver as identified by yourself,

or the registered keeper may have identified you to be the driver.

If you are not the correct recipient of this data then it must be destroyed or returned to the sender.

 

Then it has a 6 images of my car at the time the NTK was given.

 

These guys have not justified the illegal signage and are willing to settle for a lesser sum.

Does this mean ive won?

shall i just ignore them

or do i need to respond?

Help would be appreciated.

Thank you all

[armadillo71]

From the POFA;

 

(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph*8(2)©*or*(d)*or, as the case may be,*9(2)(d)*(less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

 

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

 

 

The NTK will not be compliant either...

[michael.uwt]

I would rather avoid another debate when they have not corresponded to the illegal signage.

 

Do i ignore the letter as i stated in my letter I will not enter into further correspondence with them?

 

or Do I send them a final letter stating their letter does not correspond to the argument of illegal signage and I am not appealing i am rebutting?

[Bazooka Boo]

IMO I would be inclined to ignore them at this stage, as Eric said, the more you write to them the more they believe you're uncertain of your position and will do anything and everything to exploit it.

 

Eric will no doubt come back later, and will be able to give the correct advice, but again IMO, you have made it perfectly clear in your first letter to them that you're not going to be paying regardless of their invoice.

[ericsbrother]

they have nothing to say so repeat the same old twaddle.

I'm also impressed with the way that they say you may not use your personal data they have captured or you will be breaking the law. Really?

 

No need to waste any more time with them,

If UKPCS are serious about having a day out and paying yo to go to their party

they will send you the correct paperwork for such an event.

 

 

Probably wont and this letter will not help them one little bit but file it away just in case.

In short, ignore anything that isnt a court claim on the official paper and properly stamped.

[michael.uwt]

Yes I felt like they were stumbling all over themselves.

 

 

They said some weird things in that letter which sounded irrelevant.

 

 

I will take your advice and ignore them and any further letters I get unless they are offical.

Thanks guys

[armadillo71]

I would rather avoid another debate when they have not corresponded to the illegal signage.

 

Do i ignore the letter as i stated in my letter I will not enter into further correspondence with them?

 

or Do I send them a final letter stating their letter does not correspond to the argument of illegal signage and I am not appealing i am rebutting?

 

 

You do not need to debate. I was pointing out, as they claim that they are using it, what Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 states.

 

 

And that is the only statute that allows keeper liability.

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

[Lillyy]

Yes I felt like they were stumbling all over themselves.

 

 

They said some weird things in that letter which sounded irrelevant.

 

 

I will take your advice and ignore them and any further letters I get unless they are offical.

Thanks guys

 

Hi I have received the same invoice letter from Miah Solicitors.

 

 

I have checked on my local council website and it appears UKCPS also do not have PP where I parked.

 

 

I am contemplating whether to write a letter similar to yours but would like to know if there was any further correspondence.

 

I would really appreciate your advice.

 

thank you

[ericsbrother]

By writing you create a paper trail that damns then if they want to continue matters. Doing nothing is not an option so write you letter and tell them that their clients criminality wont go unnoticed.

[Lillyy]

By writing you create a paper trail that damns then if they want to continue matters. Doing nothing is not an option so write you letter and tell them that their clients criminality wont go unnoticed.

 

Thank you for your response.

 

I contacted Miah advising that they do not have planning permisson but unfortunately I quoted the business address as opposed to the address where I had parked. Anyway I made a careless mistake and they now seem very confident with their response.

 

Here is the response I received today.

 

We refer to the above matter and your previous correspondence.

 

We can confirm that our Client does indeed manage the parking at 1200 Century Way, Thorpe Park Business Park and can confirm all the signage at all their sites meet the requirements and regulations set out by Council Planning Department.

 

However, this PCN does not relate to the site 1200 Century Way, Thorpe Park Business Park, Leeds, LS15 8ZA. The PCN was incurred on the private land at Gloucester Terrace, Leeds, LS12 3ER.

 

As you believe that our Client needs planning permission to display signage, we can confirm this is incorrect.

Please refer to the link provided below for additional information on signage and planning permission.

 

XXXXXXX

 

Please see attached, evidently your vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit.

 

If we do not receive full payment of £160.00, or any further correspondence from you, within 14 days of the date of this letter we may issue legal proceedings immediately. Payment can be made by cheque, made payable to The Miah Solicitors, please include the reference number so we are able to allocate your payments, by credit or debit card by contacting our office (includes a £1.00 surcharge per transaction) or by bank transfer using the bank details below:

 

 

 

UKCPS definitely do not have planning permission where I have parked but apparently they do not need it.

 

Do I just pay the fine, wait for court letter or respond?

 

 

I'm not sure what to do now.

[Bazooka Boo]

This ISN'T a fine, nowhere in any of their correspondence do they mention the word 'fine'.

 

And NO, you don't pay up, they are calling your bluff, and you're believing their lies.

 

IMO I would ignore them.

[ericsbrother]

so they have sent a letter that doesnt deny they are criminals and then tells lies abooyt planning permission. What a bunch of muppets.

Ignore them from now on, they have made things worse for their clients and you should not help them out of their hole by saying anything else at this juncture