Hi Folks - parking dispute

[speedier]

I've been lurking on this site for some months and I'm quite impressed by the information provided. So much so that I wondered whether it is now time for me to ask specific advice about a dispute I have with Wright Hassall, and ZZPS who instructed them.

This because their latest letter seems slightly different to others on this site in that they assert that they are required to comply specifically with Annex B of the Pre Action Protocol and will do so fully, and that in proceedings they comply with the spirit (my emphasis) of Annex A, and conduct litigation in accordance with the overriding Objective, and they have flatly refused to re-issue their so-called Letter before Claim.

If anyone can point me to a thread which I may have missed which will help me decide whether to alter my already drafted reply I would be very grateful, as I would for any guidance in posting a new thread.

[speedier]

Re: Hi Folks - parking dispute

Could anyone advise me whether there is a thread on this site which deals with the specific problem I've stated in my previous post?

Failing that, I would welcome some advice about posting a new thread which is likely to receive the advice that I need. Thanks in advance and best regards.

[ostell]

Re: Hi Folks - parking dispute

You could query why ZZPS, a debt collector and not the owner of the alleged debt, are instructing a solicitor.

[mystery1]

Re: Hi Folks - parking dispute

ZZps, themselves are powerless. Having said that, some of the firms the represent do go on to take legal action and i wouldn't be surprised to see the others follow suit eventually. You can check the stats on whatever company it is http://www.bmpa.eu/company_guide_0_to_c.html

For me respond by email asking for details every time you get letters is a good way to go as it may help if it ever does turn in to a court case. Take great care not to reveal the drivers identity including a careless use of "I". "The driver" is the best turn of phrase.

M1

[speedier]

Re: Hi Folks - parking dispute

Thanks very much ostell and mystery1. The link was very helpful, and it appears that the operator concerned rarely takes people to court, but it does seem wise to continue answering the solicitors' letters for the reason pointed out: that it could end up in court, and so I would appreciate any suggestions :

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref: .................................................. ......................... Car Park
Thank you for your letter of 22^nd March 2017, but I would to point out that it does not in fact address the points raised in my earlier letters.
Several of the issues raised are in dispute, which will be dealt with in my formal Response, but despite your assurance to the contrary it is my understanding that you should follow the Practice Direction Annex A Para 2, and I would specifically mention the following outstanding requirements:
(1) the claimant’s full name and address;
(2) Provided but not accepted
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based
(4) Provided but not accepted
(5) if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated; and
(6) details of any funding arrangement (within the meaning of rule 43.2(1)(k) of the CPR) that has been entered into by the claimant.
Your letter should also list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely. Your continued refusal to follow these steps and to provide this list seems to undermine the whole purpose of the Practice Direction, i.e., to exchange information and documents before starting legal proceedings.
As previously stated, I will provide my formal response on receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of the above-mentioned Practice Direction.
On receipt of such, and only on receipt of such, will I provide my formal response.
Yours faithfully,

Thanks in advance for any advice

[mystery1]

Re: Hi Folks - parking dispute

What are 2 & 4 ?

M1

[speedier]

Re: Hi Folks - parking dispute

What are 2 & 4 ?

M1

I hope I've got it right M1, but these are the first four requirements I took from Annex A of the Pre Action Protocol, which I assume the solicitors should be familiar with, despite the fact that they say they only have to comply with the spirit of Annex A, but conduct litigation in accordance with the overriding Objective and in full compliance with Annex B :

(1) the claimant’s full name and address;
(2) the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable)
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based
(4) what the claimant wants from the defendant

[mystery1]

Re: Hi Folks - parking dispute

I wouldn't write those then.

If you do not accept what the claimant says then you really should say why. I appreciate that you also say when you get answers you'll reply in full but putting that answer to 2&4 implies you know what the claim is about and a judge might see you as a chancer.

Ask for what you need to defend the claim, IMO.

M1

[speedier]

Re: Hi Folks - parking dispute

Hi M1. I've been editing my post and just seen your reply, which was posted before I finished editing, so you probably haven't seen the last paragraph.

Edit: I see what you mean though, and the reason for items 1 & 3 not being dealt with are: - 1 because the claimant should be the car park operator, (who aren't even mentioned) and not ZZPS, and 3 because there was no clear summary of the facts. I've had this drafted for a week, and didn't spot these errors before, so it's a really good thing you brought it up.

[mystery1]

Re: Hi Folks - parking dispute

Much better

M1

[speedier]

Re: Hi Folks - parking dispute

Thanks M1, and apologies for the confusion earlier, but to recap, the points are:

(1) the claimant’s full name and address - Not provided - should be the car-park operators who aren't even mentioned.
(2) the basis on which the claim is made: provided - "When a customer doesn't pay for their parking within their allowed time period (up to 12am the next day)", but not accepted.
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based (no facts provided).
(4) what the claimant wants from the defendant "£196 demanded", but not accepted
(5) if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated - no calculations provided; and
(6) details of any funding arrangement (within the meaning of rule 43.2(1)(k) of the CPR) that has been entered into by the claimant. Not provided.

I guess it would it be better to include the reasons as above, but still would be grateful for any further advice, including whether they are correct in saying they don't have to comply with Annex A? Incidentally, I don't even know what (6) means, but they haven't provided it!4

Edit. I added a paragraph to an earlier post thinking that I'd made an error, but then removed it, as my original draft was correct, apart from not including reasons.