Am I buggered? <scans attached>

[spinningfish]

Do they have powers to default her, because she has a perfect credit file and in no way wants that?

 

 

Thanks again

 

Fishhhhhh

[Rob S]

No, they can't default her without going to court and getting a judgement against her.

[spinningfish]

Fine. I shall write back to them.

 

Thanks for your help!

 

Much appreicated.

[spinningfish]

Right. I think we should have a little fun with this letter... They've made me mad, so let's enjoy ourselves...

 

Anyone want to give any suggestions as to the content??

[spinningfish]

New one arrived today and now my mother is very distressed.

 

They have filled an N19 in with all her details on, for a local court. There is no court stamp - just a completed claim form.

 

What swines!! I need to stop this now, because my mother is getting really really upset. Can anyone help put an end to this please?

 

Thanks

[patdavies]

This is your answer

 

 

I've sent this Recorded Delivery, which should do the trick...

 

"Dear Sirs

 

I write in respect of your letter dated 9th May 2007.

 

In previous correspondence to your client, I stated that a third party was driving the vehicle. For this reason, I dispute this debt, as no contract exists between your client and myself as the registered keeper.

 

I require a letter by return to state that this matter has either been passed back to your client, or a letter from yourselves to state you have began court proceedings, which I will welcome, as I will robustly defend any claim and would be glad of the opportunity to counter-sue for costs, time, etc.

 

Any future letters from either yourselves, or OPC, stating anything to the contrary will be viewed as harassment and reported to the police as a criminal matter.

 

 

Kind Regards

 

Mrs Fish"

 

Hope this does the trick...

[Zamzara]

New one arrived today and now my mother is very distressed.

 

They have filled an N19 in with all her details on, for a local court. There is no court stamp - just a completed claim form.

 

This is fraud, plain and simple, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006. It's the equivalent of sending income tax demands to people which are not really from the Inland Revenue but purport to be.

[Guest perky88]

Its not often I agree with the views of certain people on here, as we come from different sides of the augument, however on this one I have to support them (except the Fraud Act bit...)

 

Sending N19s to people, to look like an official court claim form is contary to the Administration of Justice Act and the matter should be reported - this is outrageous that a company resorts to this.

[inapicklepleasehelp]

Its not often I agree with the views of certain people on here, as we come from different sides of the augument, however on this one I have to support them (except the Fraud Act bit...)

 

Sending N19s to people, to look like an official court claim form is contary to the Administration of Justice Act and the matter should be reported - this is outrageous that a company resorts to this.

 

New one arrived today and now my mother is very distressed.

 

They have filled an N19 in with all her details on, for a local court. There is no court stamp - just a completed claim form.

 

What swines!! I need to stop this now, because my mother is getting really really upset. Can anyone help put an end to this please?

 

Thanks

 

 

I am still a novice at defending pcn's but I do know about the laws behind chasing personal debt and it is completely illegal to issue an N19 without a court stamp. You now have them by the short and curlys and whilst getting threats like this is stressful you can rest assured that they will NOT take you to court. By issuing the N19 with no court stamp they have just secured themselves a LOSE !!

 

As an extra bit of info, if you were prepared to stump up the initial court administration fee you could sue them for harrassment claiming undue stress caused by them and with the evidence you now have you would absolutely WIN hands down!

 

Make sure you report this to the police and get a crime reference number asap.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

As an extra bit of info, if you were prepared to stump up the initial court administration fee you could sue them for harrassment claiming undue stress caused by them and with the evidence you now have you would absolutely WIN hands down!

 

But what that would potentially do is leave you exposed in court to naming who the driver was.

 

So I really wouldn't think that was the right way to go unless you felt you could get more for the harrassment than the parking costs!

[Steve__M]

What is an N19 please?

 

I've found information on hmcourts-service.gov.uk about an N9 (a claim form that you receive if someone is trying to sue you). Is it this, or is it something else?

 

I tried googling, but N19 is rather a rather popular term!

 

I'm in a similar situation over a different matter (lots of solicitors letters stating nothing in law but implying that I am obliged to bow to their superior use of legal jargon and pay them money). So far a lot of their tactics are similar to the parking/extortion company tactics I've read in this forum. I think I've backed them into a corner regarding the lawfulness of their demands, and am wondering if the court claim form tactic will be next.

 

PS. I understand your distress and offer moral support. My mother-in-law receives ever-increasing demands once per month or two from "Tele 123" (google it) or "Telecom Billing Services" for a phone call made by an unknown person using her phone. I have to explain each time that it is a [problem], that it's completely unenforceable, and should (in her case) be ignored - fortunately she doesn't know how to write a cheque otherwise she'd have paid it by now.

[patdavies]

But what that would potentially do is leave you exposed in court to naming who the driver was.

 

 

Why?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Why?

 

Because if it got to court you would be exposed to having to give evidence supporting your allegation of harassment, that would lead you exposed to cross examination and, if asked, would have to answer the question "who was the driver of the car on the day in question?" truthfully.

 

Remember also, I did say "potentially"

[patdavies]

Because if it got to court you would be exposed to having to give evidence supporting your allegation of harassment, that would lead you exposed to cross examination and, if asked, would have to answer the question "who was the driver of the car on the day in question?" truthfully.

 

Remember also, I did say "potentially"

 

And the correct answer is " As I was not there at the time to witness that, I do not know. All I can say with absolute certainty is, that it was not I. The parking company have alleged a contract with the driver, surely your client should therefore already know the driver's identity."

[Esio Trot]

I am still a novice at defending pcn's but I do know about the laws behind chasing personal debt and it is completely illegal to issue an N19 without a court stamp. You now have them by the short and curlys and whilst getting threats like this is stressful you can rest assured that they will NOT take you to court. By issuing the N19 with no court stamp they have just secured themselves a LOSE !!

 

If you mean the small claims court application form, then what you say may not apply.

 

In our office, should we ever get as far as taking a debtor to court, we always complete the claim form, then send a copy to the person who owes us. In the covering letter it refers back to the Letter Before Action and says that this a copy of the claim form that we will be lodging with the court unless they pay or come to an arrangement.

 

We have never been accused of harassment, as it is a last chance offer from us demonstrating our reluctance to issue proceedings.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

And the correct answer is " As I was not there at the time to witness that, I do not know. All I can say with absolute certainty is, that it was not I. The parking company have alleged a contract with the driver, surely your client should therefore already know the driver's identity."

 

Two things:

 

Firstly, relating to spinningfish's mother who owns the car, I think it is unrealistic to expect her to remember to answer a technical response. OK I don't know the lady in question but I get a sense from the posts.

 

Secondly, I feel that it is not unreasonable to suppose that many of these threads are read by people who wish to use the arguments suggested against charges received when they are both the keeper and the driver. They can defend the charge simply enough by asking the claimant to prove who the driver was. But if they chose to make a claim for harassment, a lawyer or any half decent person representing themselves will ask the question if it gets to court: "who was driving the car on dd/mm/yyyy" and that question will have to be answered truthfully or a crime will be committed. Even your suggested response, if truthful, will not I think deflect a competent lawyer. A bit of probing and the truth will out. The times when the driver is genuinely not known for a privately owned vehicle will be few and far between.

 

In my view to make a formal accusation of harassment and to start civil proceedings is an escallation taht is not worth it.

[spinningfish]

Well, just as I thought things had blown over, a court summons was received this morning, from OPC Ltd via MCOL.

 

The particulars of claim are as follows, although I'm going to omit dates etc in case they are reading this:

 

"We are a private parking company who holds a contract with the owners of the land to issue parking tickets to drivers not abiding by the terms and conditions which are displayed on site. On XX/XX/06 vehicle reg PXXX XXX was parked in XXXXXXXXXX, Hatfield, without displaying a valid permit. The case was handed to a debt collections agency who also failed to obtain payment. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% a year from XX/XX/06 to 05/02/10 of £XX and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of 0.02."

 

Obviously, I'm going to contest this, but need a robust defence. Would anyone mind helping me with this? I'd really appreciate it.

 

Thanks in advance

 

SF

[DBC]

Well, just as I thought things had blown over, a court summons was received this morning, from OPC Ltd via MCOL.

 

The particulars of claim are as follows, although I'm going to omit dates etc in case they are reading this:

 

"We are a private parking company who holds a contract with the owners of the land to issue parking tickets to drivers not abiding by the terms and conditions which are displayed on site. On XX/XX/06 vehicle reg PXXX XXX was parked in XXXXXXXXXX, Hatfield, without displaying a valid permit. The case was handed to a debt collections agency who also failed to obtain payment. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% a year from XX/XX/06 to 05/02/10 of £XX and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of 0.02."

 

Obviously, I'm going to contest this, but need a robust defence. Would anyone mind helping me with this? I'd really appreciate it.

 

Thanks in advance

 

SF

 

Is this an actual court summons, or just another threatogram from these people saying they MAY take you to court?. Unless it is an officially stamped piece of paper, just ignore.

[spinningfish]

Officially stamped this time... The real deal.

[spinningfish]

Would anyone be able to help me construct a defence please?

 

Thank you

[spinningfish]

Would anyone be able to help me construct a defence please?

 

Thank you

[JimmySpangle]

Your defence is simple. This is based on contract law. Only if both parties agree is it a contract. You agree by reading the sign and parking. You didn't know there were any signs thus you didn't see them and thus there is no contract. They could only sue you for any actual loss caused by you parking. So, if it was a £2.00 oper hour space and you were there for 3 hours, they could sue you for £6.

 

Your defense is that you were not aware of any signage when you parked and thus did not entre into a contract.

[JimmySpangle]

I have only skipped through thjis thread again, but as it is your mothers car and she is the registered keeper, they must be taking her to court. All she has to do is to write in her defence that she was not the driver of teh vehicle and thus is not liable. There is no requirement for her to say who the driver was.

 

If you have admitted it was you then my advise above still applies.

[spinningfish]

Nice one Jimmy. Thanks.

[lamma]

Make that a notarised affidavit that not only denies she was the driver but also states where she was at the time.