Excel/BW/Elms ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - But i paid! - Providince St Wakefield WF1 3BG ***Claim Dismissed***

[ericsbrother]

they have sent you the wrong cut and paste letter and it is clear they havent spoken to their clients either. They are trying to blindside you into paying up as they get a wedge out of anything you send.

I would suggest that you wait for a lba and then tell them agin waht a bunch of wazzocks they are for being unable to read or count.

[cagedbird]

I found it a bit strange when reading it.

They repeated, almost verbatim, some of the contents of the responses from Excel.

They probably share the same documents to cut and paste from.

 

I'm going to have a good Christmas and New Year and look forward to their next feeble attempts at bullying.

All the best, and look forward to the next thrilling instalment.

[ericsbrother]

Will and John, the worlds cleverest solicitors at Gladstones are also Will and John, owners of the IPC, the worlds dodgiest ATA for parking. The reason the letters look the same is they probably wrote the originals for Excel to copy from.

 

Understand, they are not honest brokers, they act for their client and their cliet as solicitors are members of the club that charges then for pushing them towards the lawyerly aspect of their life. They amke money regardless of whether the parking co loses it for following their crap advice.

Edited December 21, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[cagedbird]

Well, here we are a year and three days on. The sleepy little highwayman decides to wake up.

Today I received the Letter Before Claim (attached).

Are ELMS Legal new to the scene, or one of the other cronies under a new guise?

 

Many Thanks.

 

LetterBeforeClaim.pdf

[dx100uk]

thread tidied.

 

elms … urm.. looks like a one man band armchair advocate..doesn't appear to be registered as a solicitor on mainstream authorities sites like SRA/FCA.

 

I can't find the real name behind the firm name.

 

let me pull a spies chain.

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

https://www.legalchoices.org.uk/types-of-lawyers/regulated-lawyers/legal-executives

 

read the bit about cilex practioners..a bit down..

 

[cagedbird]

Companies House: HERE

[BankFodder]

Quote

Tel:

 

In-house Solicitor at:

Vehicle Control Services Ltd
2 Europa Court,
Sheffield,
South Yorkshire,
S9 1XE,
England
View in Google Maps

Roles at other organisations

• Director - Elms Legal Limited
• Employee - Elms Legal Limited
• In-house Solicitor - Mil Collections Limited

 

https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/person/67740/edmund-jonathan-garvey-shoreman-lawson

[dx100uk]

yes other spies have found these out:

note the last comment;;;

 

ELMS Legal Ltd
31 Handley Street
Sleaford
England
NG34 7TQ

 

Company Number: 09160334

 

Director: Ed Jonathan Garvey Shoreman-Lawson

 

Companies House link: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09160334

 

Endole link: https://suite.endole.co.uk/insight/company/09160334-elms-legal-limited

 

BizDb link: https://www.bizdb.co.uk/company/landlords-lawyer-ltd-09160334/

 

CILEx Regulation ID: 2164466, Edmund Shoreman-Lawson
(at this link: https://cilexregulation.org.uk/firms/  click on 'Firm Directory' its an auto PDF download
then open PDF and go down to ELMS Legal Ltd

 

Authorised by CILEx Regulation for Civil Litigation: Authorisation No: 2164466

 

Law Society link (Edmund Jonathan Garvey Shoreman-Lawson): https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/person/67740/edmund-jonathan-garvey-shoreman-lawson

 

SRA - ELMS Legal Limited (on the link check SRA-regulated people and roles whose name it is)
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/check-and-find-a-solicitor/solicitors-register/organisation/?sraNumber=630494#headingTwo

 

SRA - Edmund Jonathan Garvey Shoreman-Lawson (look at where this person works, VCS, MIL Collections)
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/check-and-find-a-solicitor/solicitors-register/person/?firstName=Edmund&lastName=Jonathan&sraNumber=537827

 

Linkedin link: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/edmund-shoreman-lawson-34557b127

 

This guy does use different versions of his name from full name to leaving some off name.

 

What you will notice is Mr Edmund Jonathan Garvey Shoreman-Lawson himself is SRA Regulated but ELMS Legal Limited, Vehicle Control Services Ltd & MIL Collection Limited are all not SRA Regulated.

[ericsbrother]

A read of the legislation for county courts will provide you with conflicting info on who may represent a person at court 

 

My reading is this bloke may pitch up in person but not an employee of the company.

At this stage anyone can fill out letters as the representative.

 

Read up on MIL Collectiosnsand you will see that they have history and a track record of LOSING

[cagedbird]

I hope you all had a good Christmas and New Year!

Thanks to all for your input.

 

Here's my proposed response:

 

With reference to your letter of December 2019, reference as above, its contents are acknowledged.

The matter has been passed to yourselves after BW Legal’s failed attempts to bully me into submission; using lies, mistruths and threats of legal proceedings. Perhaps they saw the error of their ways - perhaps not!

As before, I’ll keep this simple so as to avoid confusion.

The Particulars of Debt in your letter are unsubstantiated.

We parked, I paid.

As your client insists on taking Court action, then please advise them that I will make a request to the Court for full costs due to unreasonable behaviour (CPR Part 27.14(2)(g)).

 

 

[ericsbrother]

Respnd as follows

 

Dear sirs,

I would look forward to seeing you in court but as you have no right of audience in the capacity you correspond in that wont happen.

Tell your client that they know there is no cause for action and they are in breach of the GDPR for obtaining my data so it should be me sending  them threatograms rather than some lickspittle earning a less than honest crust threatening me.

If they have any sense, which would be a very rare thing for a parking company, they will now drop the matter rather than suffer a full costs recovery order for their unreasonable conduct and vex

[cagedbird]

Quote

Tell your client that they know there is no cause for action and they are in breach of the  GDPR for obtaining my data 

 

The data was obtained pre-GDPR. The PCN was issued on the 14th May 2018, with GDPR becoming effective on the 25th May 2018. Unless it can be applied retrospectively, I feel this is a moot point.

 

Just found an interesting article : https://www.vsec.infinigate.co.uk/blog/according-to-the-gdpr-it-is-in-force-already :

 

Quote

 

The final commandment that is article 99 reads:

1. - This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official - Journal of the European Union.
2. - It shall apply from 25 May 2018.

One number short of an upside-down mark of the beast, the 99^th article suggests that the GDPR has been in force since the twentieth day subsequent to its publication, that being the 17^th of May 2016. Yet, its application is not honoured until two years after.

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

I wouldn't worry 

they won't know any diff send the snotty letter.

dx

[ericsbrother]

the write DPA/GDPR instead. As they are STILL processing your data it is factual to say GDPR alone

[BankFodder]

Open

[cagedbird]

It's been all quiet since my last posting, but it appears the sleeping giant has decided to wake up.

 

This morning I received the County Court Claim Form from Northampton - attached.

 

As you will see from the particulars they have gone down the avenue of 'parking without payment', despite having provided them with the proof that I did pay.

 

Naturally, I'm going to defend and am starting to put it all together.

 

Do I have grounds to put in a counter claim or not, and would it be worth the cost and effort?

 

Any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated.

CCClaim.pdf

[BankFodder]

In any event send the acknowledgement or service straight away and that will give you 28 days before having to file the defence

[brassnecked]

follow this sticky and do AOS online with  Defend All ticked  The team will be along soon with further advice, they have already made a mistake, they haven't indicated who they are suing keeper or Driver, if Keeper £60 of that total is void anyway.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Not a good idea to go for a counter claim-that prevents them from discontinuing their claim. 

 

They are taking you to Court for the wrong reason.

You did pay even if not within their imaginary ten minute payment period when you were able to stay there for 12 hours And you would have paid within their time period had their system been working proficiently. It is not equitable that you are penalised for the shortcomings in their system. 

 

As you paid then they had no reason to apply to the DVLA for your data-a clear breach of Data Protection regulations and should

attract a penalty of around  £500 at least.

 

They do not say whether they are pursuing you as the driver or keeper.

I have not seen their NTK to see if the POFA regs were followed though you inadvertently have revealed during your appeals that you were the driver.

 

In addition they have added an extra £60 to the charge which has been referred to as an abuse of process by many Judges including this case which you should mention in your WS.

Look at post 1 and the actual summing up of the case by the Judge on the last section of post 1.

[ericsbrother]

you have grounds for going after them but do this as a separate action if you are minded to.

Win this one first and you make that journey much smoother and you may get a payout from them when you slap them with a LBA, it has happened before.

 

So for the moment, acknowledge the claim and prepare your draft defence, which at this point will be just bullet points such as

 

" the prescribed fee was paid by the driver at the time so no breach of contact has occurred.

 

The defendant has the parking receipt issued at the time and the claimant has known this from the outset.

 

The defendant invites the court to use its management powers to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4 as the claim is vex and order a full costs recovery order under CPR 27.12.2(g) should the matter go further"

 

now this may or may not get read and acted upon at this stage  but chances are by the time it gets to a local court ordering both sides to produce their full statements it will be on the top of the pile and Excel's ring  will be twitching

[cagedbird]

Hi,

Thanks for that.

I have acknowledged the claim and indicated I intend to defend.

 

I've been looking at all the communications on this and the various differing claims - "didn't pay for the first 90+ minutes", "contravention time 18:01 (when leaving car park)" etc. and was trying to decide whether to defend purely on the Particulars of Claim - "Parked without payment...", or whether to also bring into it the afore mentioned different allegations.

 

I think your suggested draft defence answers this (PoC), but any other thoughts and guidance would be appreciated.

 

 

[ericsbrother]

you can only defend the claim they have made so stick to the simple couiple of sentences. WHEN it gets to exchanging documants and statements you can chuck in the kitchen sink.

Tr and write about somehting they arent claiming for and they might get your defence thrown out and thus you lose by default.

 

 

keep it simple

[brassnecked]

Less is always More at this stage, give them nothing to chew on and they are stuck with their rigid roboclaim POC.

[cagedbird]

Thanks ericsbrother and brassnecked.

 

That's the way I was thinking, but just need to be sure. Your confirmation is greatly appreciated.