Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ PCN - VCS in Sheffield - Soft appeal rejected

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 11:45
Post #1071147

Hi all,

I've joined here from MSE in the hope some legal eagles can give me a bit of a pointer regarding the appeal to the entirely "unbias" IAS board.

Here is the link to the MSE topic, but I'll copy the latest post and add some information below;

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5228413

QUOTE
So, as for the pcn. It has been issued under a code 81. "Parked in a restricted area of a car park".

As you can see from the pictures above, there is no signage to dictate that the area is restricted, neither on the floor markings or on posts. This alone makes this ticket null and void in my opinion but obviously they thought otherwise by responding on this point saying;
QUOTE
"As per the statement made by our patrol officer, your vehicle was parked in a restricted area. Specifically, they stated, "not parked in a bay or space, parked in a service bay". The signs on site clearly state, "Park correctly and only between the lines of a single marked bay". It is not unreasonable to expect motorists to check signs in situ before leaving their vehicle.
.


I think they have caught themselves out there, as he says the patrol monkey has said one thing, and their own sign says another. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It goes on to say;
QUOTE
Your vehicle was not parked in a parking bay, and the signs on site indicate that any area that is not a parking bay may not be used for parking. Accordingly, this notice was issued correctly for a breach of the Terms and Conditions displayed on site and quoted above, and the charge will therefore stand. Whilst we appreciate what you have stated in your correspondance, we must advise you that it is the landower's decision whether or not to have lines warning motorists. As the signage in the car park is deemed as adequate, there is no need for lines warning motorists as well.

Personally, I still think this is rubbish. Again though if anyone can enlighten me that would be wonderful.

I also pulled up the charge amount and questioned its value, here is the response;

QUOTE
We note your comments in relation to the amount of our PCN charges and we can confirm that they represent a sum for liquidated and ascertained damages in respect of a breach of the "parking contract". Those charges have been calculated in advance and were clearly set out on the signage. When a motorist parks in breach of the terms and conditions of parking, a loss is incurred by us as incorrect parking prevents the efficient management of the car park. If we are unable to regulate the car park, our clients would not require our services and the company would cease to exist. It is therefore justifiable that the operator seeks to enforce its terms and conditions.


I will be sending another letter to them today, asking for a fully compliant VAT invoice to be sent to me with a breakdown of all charges applied to create the £100 charge. We shall see what they say.


So I will have a look for a template, unless someone wishes to provide something which might stand a chance of getting the PCN thrown out?

It will basically be along the same lines as my original appeal of contravention did not occur due to lack of restricted area signage and ergo lack of signage stipulating where restricted areas are and disproportional charges.

I understand that once this letter is fired off, unless I get a court order or similar I simply ignore further letters, although there is an option to deny the "collection agency" and refer them back to VCS.

Oh as a side note, I'll be getting a witness statement from one of the business owners to add ammo to my rebuttle.

Cheers for any help anyone can offer. I realise it's a mammoth first post and I've probably left loads out, but please ask any questions you need answering.

Al.

Posted by: Frustratedtobits Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 12:42
Post #1071170

You won't get anywhere with these leeches they will most likely just pass you on to ZZPS who are even more useless, take a look at my posts and others regarding ZZPS and Wright Hassall.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 13:01
Post #1071180

I don't doubt I will, seeing as the IPC and IAS are basically the same company (owned by same directors IIRC).

I've had a read through your threads, but you appeared to be at a more advanced stage than I was. So there is a slim chance I can get mine thrown out.

However, in order to show I won't bend over, I need to create a solid argument regarding my stance and why what they are doing is illegal and unenforceable. That way I know that when I start getting the demands for payment I can ignore them in good conscience and will have a stronger case should I ever get called to court.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 13:32
Post #1071191

VAT isnt payable on damages, so that wont fly. If they were trying to claim contractual charge, not loss for breach of contract, then VAT would be payable.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 13:55
Post #1071209

Ok, good to know. I'll throw that request letter then.

Is there anything you can advise that I should pay particular attention to given what I've included so far? I'll draft the fisrt version of the IAS appeal letter tonight and upload it later for appraisal.

Thanks.

Al.

Posted by: BigAlC Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 07:20
Post #1071370

[attachment=34900:1st_stage_appeal.jpg]

For information - The initial appeal letter.

I assume I've ruined the chance of appealing under POFA reasons?

Posted by: numanoids Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 07:41
Post #1071378

you havent posted a copy of the notice so we can't say if its POFA compliant or not. Did they issue a windscreen ticket at all? Your appeal doesn't make any representations as to who YOU are so they may claim reasonable assumption that you were the driver particularly as you say "me", "i" and go on about the signage.


Posted by: BigAlC Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 08:03
Post #1071384

Apologies, all I have at the moment is the one that was affixed to the screen.

Uploaded below with appeal rejection letter.

[attachment=34903:screen_pcn.jpg]

[attachment=34901:appeal_r...tion_pg1.jpg]
[attachment=34902:appeal_r...tion_pg2.jpg]

Thanks in advance,

Al.

Posted by: numanoids Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 08:10
Post #1071388

Unless you know the timescales of between the windscreen notice being issued and the first letter (including contents) its still impossible to say whether POFA compliant or not.

Posted by: emanresu Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 08:11
Post #1071389

Good to know they are claiming GPEOL. It wont win at the IPC but it will be a major stumbling block later.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 08:15
Post #1071390

POFA is mostly a non starter, looks like the ID of the driver was revealed.

The IAS are a sham, as under their appeals system you have to prove everything - however this is clearly a Breach of Contract situation and they prefer contractual charge, so you have a chance. If you want to win here, you would need to prove that e.g. the charge is unconscionable - for example if a local car park charges £25 for over staying, then £100 is clearly disprorionate. You cannot simply assert - they will seize upon this and refuse the appeal.

However, youre mostly writing this appeal for a court to see - put across everything that is valid, and shows you as being reasonable.

Posted by: BigAlC Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 08:17
Post #1071391

QUOTE (numanoids @ Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 09:10) *
Unless you know the timescales of between the windscreen notice being issued and the first letter (including contents) its still impossible to say whether POFA compliant or not.


Officially I haven't received a NTK. I appealed sooner rather than later and risk missing the deadline date. Admittedly that might be jumping the gun a little.

I got the notice on the 10-3-15 and sent appeal letter on the 25-03-15. Response of rejection of appeal was received by me on the 25-04-15 (despite date on letter being 23-04-14 - which is the 21 days I am working from)

I'm drafting an appeal to IPC (IAS) based heavily on the GPEOL aspect at the moment, but will also be looking to cite something about areas of restriction not being clearly marked.

Al.

Posted by: numanoids Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 08:25
Post #1071394

Right well you're definitely not going to get anywhere with POFA as thats for Notices to keeper only.

IAS will find in favour of the PPC so you may want to rethink whether or not you actually do appeal anyway as you may give them the points you later rely on if VCS attempt it at court.

Posted by: BigAlC Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 09:25
Post #1071424

Just for clarity, you are not suggesting that I should just cough up, but rather not bother appealing to the IAS at all?

Should I get called to court after the bombardment of debt collectors letters, will this not go against me as I have not provided any proof of "willingness" to negotiate?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 10:14
Post #1071442

We're not telling you to pay up. We're not saying you have to negotiate. There is no common ground - you owe nothing.

We're saying that the merits of engaging with a known-sham appeals service, whcih turns ALL doctrine on how these systems should work on its head, are quite low.

If you engage, and they almost certainly reject, then a court may find that rejection persuasive - you will have to show how they are a sham (anonymous assessors, the close ties proving non independence, the requirement that the person challenging has to provide proof of everything, a legal nonsense, etc) in order to show how this can be disregarded. Additionally, by engaging you let them know exqatly your points, when the supposeduly independent Gladstones then file with small claims.

The advantage is as you say - you can look more reasonable.

If you dont engage, none of this applies, and you can simply state that you do not feel ADR will be suitable, given the public record nature of the IAS, andlet them know you will not pay anything to them, until a court orders it, and to not waste time with debt collectors. Give them 28 days to lay papers, oryou will consider the matter closed. Any action taken after this time will be considered unreasonable

Posted by: BigAlC Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 11:46
Post #1071483

That's how I understood it, thanks for confirming.

I'm still writing this appeals letter, and will stick a screenshot on of what I'm saying.

However, again just so that I understand, the recommendation is that I respond back to VCS stating the above.

I'll then bank the document I am creating, and have to obtain information regarding close ties, guilty until proven innocent etc.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 11:55
Post #1071487

If you're appealing to the IAS, then dont also write to the PPC. there is no point as you will have appealed to the IAS.

Think about it logically: in appealing to the IAS you are still saying you might pay up, dpeending on their verdict. You wont, as when they reject it will be having followed a sham of a process, but you are implicitly accepting their verdict to have some weight. 0, but thats still something

Hence saying you can just shortcut the process by directly stating to the PPC that they get nothing unless a court orders otherwise. Its a put up or shut up, and so carries risk - you may goad them into action.

Posted by: BigAlC Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 12:18
Post #1071494

Ok, well a decision to be made then.....

Here is the IAS appeal letter I've been working on.

PAGE1 PAGE2
[attachment=34909:IAS_appe...docx_pg1.jpg][attachment=34910:IAS_appe...docx_pg2.
jpg]
PAGE3 PAGE4
[attachment=34911:IAS_appe...docx_pg3.jpg][attachment=34912:IAS_appe...docx_pg4.
jpg]

views welcome.... I admittedly got a little lost and keyboard tired at the end.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 12:35
Post #1071497

a) While its a good point, and made well, that their alleged contravention does not match their appeal, the IAS wont care. They will have to say YOU Will have to prove it is not a GPEOL. Of course, impossible to do, but thats why the IAS are a scam and a sham of an appeals body.

Expect them to seize on this, as they wont care what was in your appeal

b) Similarly they will say you have to prove there is no contract, or that as the IPC "audits" this regularly, that there is assumed to be one.

c) the ticket cannot have been issued "illegally", this is a nonsense. It can be issued without sufficient backing, of course. Again, they will say parking outside of a bay is the same as parking ina restricted area, no luck. You need to provide photos showing how what they allege and what happened dont line up.

Even if you do all of that, they will likely still dismiss it.

d) Have you submitted proof of this? Expect the PPC to claim the signage is fine, and compliant. You will have to prove it isnt.

You have included the "drop hands" nonsense - irrelevant to the IPC, you cannot cancel a contract with them. That template from MSE is horrid....

Posted by: BigAlC Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 13:07
Post #1071506

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 13:35) *
a) While its a good point, and made well, that their alleged contravention does not match their appeal, the IAS wont care. They will have to say YOU Will have to prove it is not a GPEOL. Of course, impossible to do, but thats why the IAS are a scam and a sham of an appeals body.

Expect them to seize on this, as they wont care what was in your appeal

b) Similarly they will say you have to prove there is no contract, or that as the IPC "audits" this regularly, that there is assumed to be one.


Fair enough, well it appears as you say that I cannot really do much more for these points.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 13:35) *
c) the ticket cannot have been issued "illegally", this is a nonsense. It can be issued without sufficient backing, of course. Again, they will say parking outside of a bay is the same as parking ina restricted area, no luck. You need to provide photos showing how what they allege and what happened dont line up.

Even if you do all of that, they will likely still dismiss it.


I have pictures of the area the car was parked in, which show there are neither bays or restricted signs / markings in place. (I think I've uploaded them to the MSE thread - found them)




QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 13:35) *
d) Have you submitted proof of this? Expect the PPC to claim the signage is fine, and compliant. You will have to prove it isnt.

You have included the "drop hands" nonsense - irrelevant to the IPC, you cannot cancel a contract with them. That template from MSE is horrid....


Fair point, I thought some of those claims would be a bit non-sensical but was worth a mention. I'll delete the drop hands part.

In regard to signage, here is one of said signs.


I am 6ft5, and the bottom of the sign is in line with my nose give or take. What i do intend on doing on Friday is going with a tape measure and taking some measurements to see where the relevant bits of sign start, and where the top finishes. Obviously I will take some pictures to confirm.

thanks for your time regarding this by the way.

To all intents and purposes it seems easier to just ignore it now and hope it goes away, as I don't want to risk the straight to court option.

I'll still be getting a witness statement from one of the business owners regarding the matter.

Thanks,

Al.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 - 14:21
Post #1071521

Indeed, get your side in place, and see what happens

I dont suggest ignore - my preferred solution is to tell them you will not appeal to the IAS, due to your reasonable belief that their assesment will not be fair, and will therefore be a waste of time. As a result payment will only be made after a court orders you to, and that for the avoidance of doubt the engagement of debt collectors will be fruitless, as you will dispute any debt with them

Posted by: BigAlC Thu, 30 Apr 2015 - 08:20
Post #1071762

So, just a quick update. A response as per above will be drafted today, and sent off tomorrow when I can get to the post office. I'll stick a copy up when it's done.

In other news; I've drafted a complaint to my local big hitter MP's and will be sending those off to, just to add to my paper trail should the LBC arrive.

For those interested;

QUOTE
Dear Mr XXX,

I write to you today with a complaint and a feeling of great concern over the way the people are treated within your constituency, and the greater area of Sheffield in regard to the operation of what can only be classed as predatory Private Parking Firms.

As I'm sure you are aware from the news and undoubtedly other contact from the public, these companies only cause problems and pain for every day motorists and their families, with untold stress and confusion due to the illegitimate operating nature of their business model and harassment of individuals to obtain monetary gain.

Unfortunately one such company operate within your constituency. The firm in question is Vehicle Control Services Ltd, who to all intents and purposes are a self regulated firm, despite having claimed to joined an unbiased approved body in the IAS/IPC.

The appeals process they follow is fundamentally flawed, and stacked against the appellant.

When looking in to this approved body for appeals and the attached "adjudicators", the names behind them show that they are owned and directed by the same people. I would argue then that how can such a body be unbiased in their approach when it is mutually beneficial to both parties to uphold any challenge in the favor of the claimant and not to hear any argument from the appellant? Furthermore when challenged at appeal stage, the "unbiased" assessor is not named and kept completely anonymous. Surely this is meant to be a completely transparent appeals process? I would argue further that the entire process is questionable, and were you to take some time to really look in to the number of appeals upheld that the percentile would be very low.

I employ you Mr XXX to take some time from your busy schedule to look in to this body and their very underhand tactics in relation to supporting their own self serving "scam" on the public and to really consider what this is doing in order to support the communities of Sheffield and the wider country, when the law that we rely on is being so flagrantly flouted by these conscienceless money grabbers.


Yours Sincerely,


Cheers,

Al.

Posted by: numanoids Thu, 30 Apr 2015 - 08:24
Post #1071764

QUOTE (BigAlC @ Thu, 30 Apr 2015 - 09:20) *
So, just a quick update. A response as per above will be drafted today, and sent off tomorrow when I can get to the post office. I'll stick a copy up when it's done.

In other news; I've drafted a complaint to my local big hitter MP's and will be sending those off to, just to add to my paper trail should the LBC arrive.

For those interested;

QUOTE
Dear Mr XXX,

I write to you today with a complaint and a feeling of great concern over the way the people are treated within your constituency, and the greater area of Sheffield in regard to the operation of what can only be classed as predatory Private Parking Firms.

As I'm sure you are aware from the news and undoubtedly other contact from the public, these companies only cause problems and pain for every day motorists and their families, with untold stress and confusion due to the illegitimate operating nature of their business model and harassment of individuals to obtain monetary gain.

Unfortunately one such company operate within your constituency. The firm in question is Vehicle Control Services Ltd, who to all intents and purposes are a self regulated firm, despite having claimed to joined an unbiased approved body in the IAS/IPC.

The appeals process they follow is fundamentally flawed, and stacked against the appellant.

When looking in to this approved body for appeals and the attached "adjudicators", the names behind them show that they are owned and directed by the same people. I would argue then that how can such a body be unbiased in their approach when it is mutually beneficial to both parties to uphold any challenge in the favor of the claimant and not to hear any argument from the appellant? Furthermore when challenged at appeal stage, the "unbiased" assessor is not named and kept completely anonymous. Surely this is meant to be a completely transparent appeals process? I would argue further that the entire process is questionable, and were you to take some time to really look in to the number of appeals upheld that the percentile would be very low.

I employ you Mr XXX to take some time from your busy schedule to look in to this body and their very underhand tactics in relation to supporting their own self serving "scam" on the public and to really consider what this is doing in order to support the communities of Sheffield and the wider country, when the law that we rely on is being so flagrantly flouted by these conscienceless money grabbers.


Yours Sincerely,


Cheers,

Al.


Why not send it to ALL the candidates? Problem is that nobody is an MP anymore until next week but notifying them all about a legitimate concern you can chase up the eventual winner once they take the position and remind them and ask for them to investigate.

Posted by: BigAlC Thu, 30 Apr 2015 - 09:15
Post #1071779

Good point.

Picked the two most high profile (Blunkett / Clegg), but admittedly shouldn't miss the chance to get them all covered.

Will get that sorted and sent out before week is out.

Cheers,

Al.

Posted by: emanresu Thu, 30 Apr 2015 - 10:09
Post #1071804

QUOTE
I employ you Mr XXX


implore?

You may want to point out that the IAS is substantially different from all the other Adjudicators in that it has failed to appoint a Chief Adjudicator and is essentially unregulated by a qualified person.

Posted by: Castle Thu, 30 Apr 2015 - 11:32
Post #1071843

QUOTE (BigAlC @ Thu, 30 Apr 2015 - 10:15) *
Good point.

Picked the two most high profile (Blunkett / Clegg), but admittedly shouldn't miss the chance to get them all covered.

Will get that sorted and sent out before week is out.

Cheers,

Al.

Blunkett isn't standing for election and Clegg may be looking for another job come 8th May.

Posted by: BigAlC Thu, 30 Apr 2015 - 17:47
Post #1071925

Another good point. I'll hold off until the elections are through.

In an update to the car park, all of a sudden, double yellow lines have appeared all around the area concerned. So surely that means that by proxy they accept that they were in the wrong?

In which case is it worth mentioning in my response back to vcs when I refuse to appeal via the biased ias?

Going to have another go at getting the land owners details as well to get it cancelled since they've now marked up restricted areas.

Cheers,
Al.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 1 May 2015 - 13:47
Post #1072082

Yes. Same as suddenly replacing signage indicating the prior signage was inadequate.

Posted by: BigAlC Sat, 2 May 2015 - 10:50
Post #1072284

Well, in relation to signage, I went and measured from the floor to the bottom of each sign in the given area, and each one comes in at between 73 to 80 inches, before the sign starts, so well above the prescribed t&c for IPC.

Also, they still have BPA logos on them, not the required IPC ones who they are now part of.

Photos taken of everything, including the new double yellows.

I'm looking forward to any further correspondence now, whilst my evidence folder gets fatter.

Posted by: dom123 Mon, 4 May 2015 - 22:58
Post #1072943

Hi there, looks like I've been caught out by this one the weekend (on the yellows stupidly!), didn't notice as usually park in this spot. Looks like the only defence I'll have will be sign height and markings, do you happen to have a copy of the pictures you've taken of the signs?

Does anyone think it's worth me challenging? I honestly didn't see the signs so there was no contract! Just think I don't have much of a case.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 5 May 2015 - 06:38
Post #1072962

If someone could give this a quick check over to make sure it makes reasonable sense, that would be much appreciated.

As mentioned I won't appeal direct to IAS due to unfair and unbias.

QUOTE
In relation to your response letter dated 23 April 2015, I write to inform you that I will not be appealing to the IAS due to my reasonable belief that their assessment of my case will not be unbias or fair, as is shown in their public performance and therefore will be a waste of time.

Due the above, a payment for your invoice will only be provided should a court order the registered keeper to make such a payment. Although this will be defended and evidence provided to prove that a contact cannot be formed on various grounds.

For clarity, engagement of debt collectors will yield no results as the invoice will be disputed with them and they will be referred back to you.

I would like to add at this point that there have been double yellow lines painted on the floor in the area of the contravention. This by proxy re-enforces my point that the area in which the vehicle was parked, was not at that time a restricted area. The landowner by virtue of having these lines added to the car park has admitted fault and that the area was not therefore a restricted area prior to this.

I hereby give you 28 days to cancel this notice, should I hear no correspondence within this time from you directly then I shall consider this matter closed, and no further action will be taken.


Cheers all.

Al.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 5 May 2015 - 12:47
Post #1073094

If anyone could just skim over this before 4pm that would be grand.

I'm intending on printing and sending off this afternoon, I think most points are covered, but I don't want to give all of my points away on the response.

cheers again.

Al.

Posted by: BigAlC Wed, 6 May 2015 - 17:40
Post #1073583

Letter above was sent first class yesterday, confirmation of postage obtained.

So 28days brings me until the 2nd June and I am all clear fingers crossed. If not it'll just have to wait until after my holiday.

Cheers,
Al

Posted by: BigAlC Thu, 25 Jun 2015 - 12:20
Post #1087622

Hi all,

Sorry for lack of reply. Anyway, I've got my NTK. Woo. It arrived on 01-06-15. Contravention occurred on 10-03-15. So more than the 56 days limit. However, as I've already appealled to VCS I don't suppose this means much?

Can anyone confirm or deny that I should now just go in to ignore mode for everything further other than LBC letters?

I'm kind of hoping to be pro-active in getting them to do one. I've contacted the land management company with little success so far, so just keep peppering them with emails in the hope of getting something sorted out.

Cheers for any input.

Al.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 25 Jun 2015 - 20:04
Post #1087779

So you appealed and they still sent an ntk? Surely they had no reasonable cause to do so?

Posted by: BigAlC Fri, 26 Jun 2015 - 06:11
Post #1087852

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 25 Jun 2015 - 21:04) *
So you appealed and they still sent an ntk? Surely they had no reasonable cause to do so?


Correct. In my haste to tell them to do one, I appealed instead of waiting for the NTK to arrive. It arrived the day I went on holiday for 2 and a bit weeks.

So far I've gone through the process with VCS appeals, was rejected (no suprise) and offered the chance to use IAS which I responded to VCS saying I won't be as they are basically the same company and completely unbias. Gave them 28days to respond or I consider the matter closed. Heard nothing until after day 28 which was when the NTK arrived.

Usual stuff, red writing, do not ignore, pay £100 or risk court action blah blah.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 26 Jun 2015 - 10:38
Post #1087919

Completely biased, not unbiased smile.gif

So the query is - WHY did they access your registered keeper information?

They had an appeal from the driver, therefroe they had NO REASONABLE CAUSE to access the RK data. This is a breach of the DPA, surely?

As it is after day 28, write back and state you consider the matter closed. You will not entertain further correspondance from them unless they lay papers, which you will vigouously defend, poinitng out to the court the unreasonable behaviour of VCS when it comes to the question of costs.

Posted by: BigAlC Fri, 26 Jun 2015 - 11:53
Post #1087935

Ah yes, Biased is what I meant. Ta.

I'll give the DVLA a ring to see who has requested my data recently. There is a line in the NTK, I quote:

"Your details were either obtained from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) as the registered keeper / owner of the vehicle OR you have contacted us as the driver, OR you have been identified as the driver at the time of the contravention but payment remains outstanding."

I'll draft a letter tonight / tomorrow and get it posted off about the 28 days and costs etc. Although I doubt there will be a response other than the debt collectors letters.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 26 Jun 2015 - 12:03
Post #1087944

It means if they do, through idiocy, try to take you to court and tack on spuroius extra charges for DCA etc, you can point out you already told thenm you would only pay on a court ordering you to do so - so they failed to mitigate their own costs.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 14 Jul 2015 - 12:07
Post #1092783

Just a quick update, nothing of much note, but helps keep a timeline of things.

So, sent a response to VCS on 26th June basically mentioning 28 days were passed etc. All quiet so on the front so far.

Also sent a request for access information to DVLA on same day. Still waiting to hear back on that.

Also sent letters to the MP's of local constituencies on the 10th outlining what a farce the company is and how they are in effect an unregulated body. Will see if I get any response from that.

Cheers.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 28 Jul 2015 - 18:56
Post #1096946

The DRP letter has arrived demanding payment. Scary times.....

So next steps are to write once, deny the debt, further contact is harassment, cease or I will seek damages etc etc?

As a side, I must chase up my access request, and got a response from N Clegg who seems very positive about it, raised it again at house of commons apparently, offered further help if required.

The portfolio expands further.

Posted by: BigAlC Fri, 14 Aug 2015 - 06:18
Post #1101549

QUOTE (BigAlC @ Tue, 28 Jul 2015 - 19:56) *
The DRP letter has arrived demanding payment. Scary times.....

So next steps are to write once, deny the debt, further contact is harassment, cease or I will seek damages etc etc?

As a side, I must chase up my access request, and got a response from N Clegg who seems very positive about it, raised it again at house of commons apparently, offered further help if required.

The portfolio expands further.


The second DR+ letter has arrived with notice of intended court action.

Usual rubbish about if I don't cough up then they will advise court. I never bothered engaging with DR+ after the first letter, as there seems to be a consensus that it's not worth while. Is that still the case?

DVLA conveniently "lost" my request for info regarding who accessed my data, so sent another recorded delivery letter which was delivered last week. Couple of weeks to wait for a response.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 14 Aug 2015 - 10:14
Post #1101617

You should have sent a debt denied letter. You would be on stronger grounds.

Posted by: BigAlC Fri, 14 Aug 2015 - 11:51
Post #1101667

I can see the reasoning, and it's never too late to send such a letter as I'm still steps away from the LBC letter.

Posted by: BigAlC Thu, 20 Aug 2015 - 05:57
Post #1103404

Debt denied letter sent.

Have done as much as possible to get them to mitigate their costs. Now to play the waiting game again.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 1 Sep 2015 - 19:41
Post #1107079

So as above, sent the debt denied letter, got this response.

[attachment=37332:IMAG0742.jpg]
[attachment=37333:IMAG0743.jpg]

I find it quite humorous that they are now telling me where I parked, and their understanding of why the ticket is valid. There was me thinking they were just "debt collectors".

So my debt denied letter stated further contact would be harrassment, nothing paid unless I get a LBC letter. So can anyone help with a response to kill off any further contact?

Half tempted to start claiming costs on this.

Cheers in advance.

Posted by: cabbyman Tue, 1 Sep 2015 - 19:48
Post #1107081

Ignore or go for them for harassment. I don't think you will achieve anything by contacting them further.

Posted by: hoohoo Tue, 1 Sep 2015 - 20:03
Post #1107084

This is DR+ standard response.

I would not waste any more postage, but simply reply to all letters by email from now on.

Dear DR+,
I confirm receipt of you letter of xx/xx/xxxx. My position has not changed. The debt is denied. The signage was not adequate to form a contract with the motorist. Please refer the matter back to your principal. To save costs, I am open to Alternative Dispute Resolution.


DR+ will give up after a few more letters. Only do something different if you get a letter before claim or claim form



Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 2 Sep 2015 - 06:56
Post #1107155

To OP - if you want to claim costs, send a cease and desit to the principal AND to DR+, stating you reserve the right to take future action without notice unde the protection from harassment act. Cite Ferguson vs British Gas, and state you will hold them jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agent.

Pick a nice round number - say £300

Give them 14 days to confirm all action has ceased, but that any other response will triggger action

Then, follow through and submit a claim

If you dont intend to do this, dont threaten it. Theyre debt collectors, and scum. They wont just pay up, or believe you.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 07:36
Post #1182186

Hi all,

Just to update, I've had the usual letter from BW legal now stating the standard transfer to them for retrieval of costs. Balance due of £100 + £54 legal costs, which were apparently detailed on the parking sign. (tiny type face at the bottom of the sign stating
IF PAYMENT OF THE CHARGE IS NOT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PAYMENT TERMS DETAILED ON THE NOTICE VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD WILL BE ENTITLED TO TAKE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER ANY OUTSTANDING CHARGES INCLUDING INTEREST AND ANY ADDITION COST INCURRED.

I fail to see values so that's a little bit of a blank cheque book in my eyes and must be clarified.

I'll do some reading at dinner, but I am going to look at the other threads regarding BWL and start to draught a letter as a response to their letter outlining why the notice has not been paid.

If anyone had some information that may be slightly more relevant to my case, then please do contribute. I appealed to VCS (not done a IAS appeal) using "I" so in that sense I think keeper vs driver is out of the window as an arguement.

many thanks, and hope you are all well.

A.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 09:36
Post #1182238

Theyre a debt colelctor

Respond as such, stating that they must refer the debt back to their client

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 12:12
Post #1182307

[attachment=41996:BWLeg_01.jpg]

Here is the letter as received. Redacted to remove personal info.

This is, in effect my response...

[attachment=41997:BWLeg_02.jpg]

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 12:15
Post #1182309

Bits of that sound Gan like smile.gif

I like it, but wait a little on others to comment.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 12:20
Post #1182313

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 13:15) *
Bits of that sound Gan like smile.gif

I like it, but wait a little on others to comment.


Thanks. biggrin.gif

I will admit, I have spent the last hour trawling Gan's posts and in effect created that. It seems relevant to my situation as it currently stands, no doubt it will evolve in to something much more bespoke as this drags on.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 12:46
Post #1182329

Its quite lengthy, which you will have noticed runs contrary to most of Gans letters

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 15:14
Post #1182385

That is true, but I feel that it gets the two main points across now with a bit of "umpf" behind them.

I'll leave it until tomorrow for any more reviews, and then post tomorrow afternoon with proof of postage.

Cheers.
A.

Posted by: BigAlC Wed, 8 Jun 2016 - 11:53
Post #1182688

Ladies and Gents,

I notice in a lot of correspondence there is a requirement to respond within a certain time to ourselves ( the same as they put in their letters to us), but is there an "or else" that should be placed after it?

E.G. "A response must be received 14 days from the date of this letter, otherwise......"

Thanks.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 8 Jun 2016 - 12:08
Post #1182700

Yo ucould complain to the SRA or CSA, but they wont care.

You could simply state you will consider the matter closed and any further communication after this date will be treated as harassment, and refer them to the Ferguson vs British Gas case they ought to be aware of.

Posted by: BigAlC Mon, 11 Jul 2016 - 06:43
Post #1191839

So over the weekend I got my Final Notice from BW.

I had previously received a letter after my rebuttal mentioned earlier which I received on 17-06-16. Although there are inconsistencies within it;
- Date of contravention is wrong
- I'm being pursued as register keeper (POFA?)
- Legal fees are reasonable - Nothing mentioned about legal fees in signage ( generic " VCS will be entitled to take legal proceeding to recover and outstanding charges, including interest and any additional charges incurred " - in tiny box at bottom of the sign.) I don't believe this is sufficient to claim legal expenses in my opinion, all costs should be outlined if they are legitimate.

However in this final notice there is the following;
BW state:
- Yet to receive payment or response to the first letter - incorrect, letter sent and proof of postage kept.
- Below is something that has really got my back up, and I think with a bit of help from you ladies and gents could utterly blow everything out of the water.

[attachment=42605:BW_Spurious_Claims.jpg]

1) Insinuates that a CCJ WILL be won and applied to me, despite me knowing that this only occurs if I should lose and fail to pay.
2) References Beavis, and states that this will eliminate my main defence - I've never claimed anything in regard to Beavis, and my case is entirely different.
3) References that any IAS appeal that has been dismissed ( I've not gone through IAS under reasonable assumption that they are not unbiased ) will be found to be a similar decision as the court will make.


Some other items are, they expect a response tomorrow (10days from letter creation) I didn't receive the letter until Saturday 9-7-16, so that seems a little retarded. Also, still chasing the £154 of which the legal fees of £54 were detailed in the car park terms and conditions, they weren't.

I shall leave it there, have at it everyone, and I will go back to watching the post box for my LBC, should it arrive. I will also start to plan my defence in advance of anything coming through.

Thanks again, and pleasant reading.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 11 Jul 2016 - 07:23
Post #1191845

1) actually Accj is given if you lose; if you dont pay it is then registered and THAT is what tanks a credit rating!
2) They can claim anything they like, theyre not acting on your behalf. Non starter
3) Again they dont say it as a certainty. They use likely. Now you would have to get them prove otherwise

Posted by: Umkomaas Mon, 11 Jul 2016 - 07:44
Post #1191847

QUOTE
You should also note that if your claim has been processed through an IAS and an IAS has dismissed your appeal ........


Suggests strongly that this is a template response, the next attempt at a turning of the thumbscrews!

Posted by: BigAlC Mon, 11 Jul 2016 - 11:36
Post #1191895

I have no doubt that it is. The letter has that many no relevant / inconsistent parts to it that I don't even think it was seen by an employee before sending.

I'll just sit and wait.

Posted by: BigAlC Wed, 20 Jul 2016 - 13:11
Post #1194762

I changed my mind. After reading some of the other threads regarding this company, I'm going to fire a response back citing section 10, and lodge a complaint with CSA.

It will be in much similar vein as this post, http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71007759#post71007759 post 32, with relevant parts for my response added.

Also compiling complaint via CSA pdf form to post off tonight as well.


Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 20 Jul 2016 - 20:28
Post #1194900

Good...this is a fightback forum, go for it!

Posted by: BigAlC Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 06:43
Post #1207892

Morning all,

Just bringing an update on the CSA complaint I made.

Below are some copies of the response I received back from BW Legal, I'd appreciate a bit of help on where to go next with this. My opinion is that item 2 and 4 have been glossed over and fallen back on cases which do not apply in my case.

My mind is on next steps which is a complaint to the SRA?

Anyway, I'll leave the images below and will begin to make a start putting something together to send off whilst waiting for comments.

Cheers!

[attachment=43650:csa_comp...onse_pg1.jpg][attachment=43651:csa_comp...onse_pg2.
jpg][attachment=43652:csa_comp...onse_pg3.jpg]

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 07:14
Post #1207897

Complain again to the CSA about the misleading answer to your complaint. There has been no "offence" committed and as supposedly legally competent organisation they know the meaning of the word and it does not apply here. If they believe there has been an offence, they should detail which statute has been broken and the client's capacity as a prosecuting authority.

With regards to the £54 they claim to charge the Claimant, refer them to ParkingEye v Somerfield and/or to confirm the date and invoice number when the £54 was paid.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 12:32
Post #1208010

Indeed

2 is a lie. No "offence" has been committed. They have also utterly misrepresented the Elliot vs Loake case, where NO SUCH PRESUMPTION was created.

This needs strongly rebutting, as they are basically lying to you. This MUST form the basis of a strong complaint to teh SRA and CSA

With regards to the £54 they dont deny that they can recover, they jsut say the charge is reasonable. So again this needs to be pointed out in the cmoplaint - that they KNOW this charge cannotbe rcovered, and they are avoiding the question.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 13:00
Post #1208024

QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 08:14) *
With regards to the £54 they claim to charge the Claimant, refer them to ParkingEye v Somerfield and/or to confirm the date and invoice number when the £54 was paid.


Devil's advocate check.

Their letter goes on to say that the fees were'detailed in the signage'. If that is so then doesn't that mean, nothwithstanding all the other valid reasons for rejecting the PCN, that the fees form part of the contract if they are fully detailed? e.g. "In addition to the penalty charge a legal admin fee of £54 is also payable"?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 13:18
Post #1208034

Except the fees of £54 are made up and do not appear on any sign. Regardless, theyre not recoverable under POFA, and not recovereable in the SCC. I wouldnt use Somerfield as I believe that referred to DEBT COLLECTION costs, whereas these have been described as LEGAL SERVICES - very differet.

Posted by: BigAlC Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 13:56
Post #1208050

[attachment=43661:IMAG0594.jpg]

Here is a photo of the signage on site. Not a mention of £54 only the generic statement of "including interest, and any additional costs incurred" in tiny typeface.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 14:34
Post #1208068

...whcih arent prominent enough to be incorporated. Any, as theyre described as legal fees, cant be recovered anyway.

Posted by: BigAlC Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 08:49
Post #1208830

Morning all,

My first draught of the second complaint going to the CSA this week. If you could have a review and suggest some improvements?

A Similar item will be sent to the SRA as well once this one has been polished up a little, and I've read through the SRA code of conduct.

QUOTE
Dear Sir / Madam,

An initial complaint was made to the CSA on 20/07/2016, in which I am yet to receive a response from yourselves on the outcome. However, I have had a direct response from BW Legal and wish to make a further complaint based upon their response.

BW Legal have brazenly lied and misled in their response.
1) Inferring that an "Offence" has taken place, where no such thing has happened.
2) That their costs can be recovered via the small claims court.
3) Complete misrepresentation of previous court decisions in order to support their spurious claims.

There are further breaches of the CSA Code of Practice in which I shall detail below.

In reference to item 1)
1.y. Communicate with customers fairly and transparently, and not intentionally mislead them.
1.aa. Treat customers fairly and not subject customers (or their authorized representatives) to aggressive practices, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether lawful or not.

BW Legal have lied and intentionally misled. No Offence has taken place, and as a supposedly competent company within the legal sector they should know the meaning of the word and not be inciting panic or unfairly mislead the consumer otherwise. Simply put the word offence does not apply in this instance. Should an offence have been committed BW Legal should refer to which statute has been broken and detail the clients capacity as a prosecuting authority.

In reference to item 2)
1.k. Inform their clients of the true rates of charges for services rendered.
10.k. Only impose such costs and interest on customers as it is lawfully entitled.

BW Legal are attempting to add onto the alleged charge, £54 to send a template batch of letters, and work in a debt collection capacity. Statute limits my liability to the alleged charge to the amount of the original alleged charge only. There is no detail of any further costs detailed on sign-age or otherwise and therefore the £54 costs cannot be recovered at a later stage.
Again as a supposedly competent legal entity BW Legal are aware that this cannot be recovered and have avoided the question with a generic response. Legal fees cannot be recovered under either POFA 2012 or within the Small Claims Court.

In reference to item 3)
1.a. Conduct its business in compliance with all relevant legislation, regulations, regulatory guidance and requirements and this Code of Practice
1.y. Communicate with customers fairly and transparently, and not intentionally mislead them.
1.aa. Treat customers fairly and not subject customers (or their authorized representatives) to aggressive practices, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether lawful or not.
10.c. Not mislead customers as to the consequences or inevitability of consequences arising from any legal or bankruptcy action

BW Legal have no cause of action against me as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) yet continue to harass me.
BW Legal have intentionally attempted to mislead me by suggesting that Elliot VS Loake [1982] and Parking Eye Limited VS Beavis [2015] are relevant to this case when they clearly are not.

7.e. When making written contact, adhere to the CSA Guidance on Debt Collection Communication, and ensure communications are written and produced in line with applicable regulations, legislation and regulatory guidance.

BW Legal have avoided answering and continued to intentionally misrepresent the legal process by implying that a CCJ that may have an effect on my future creditworthiness and employ-ability would be entered following a successful hearing without need for any further application to the court. BW Legal have failed to indicate that a further application to the court is required before enforcement action can be taken. BW Legal communications are further misleading in that they have pre-empted that I will be liable for Court Fees, further solicitor’s costs and statutory interest whereas in fact this is a judgment at the discretion of the court.

Posted by: BigAlC Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 14:09
Post #1208972

My draught to be sent to the SRA imminently.

May not be 100% but a good starter for 10, with some parts lifted from various things I've found, and reading through the SRA code of conduct.

Comments welcome.


QUOTE
I am complaining about BW Legal’s assertions in their 'Letter of Claim' ('Final Notice') dated XX/XX/XXXX (copy supplied) and their response to a Credit Services Association (“CSA”) complaint dated XX/XX/XXXX (copy supplied) with reference to a Parking Charge Notice which I received on the XX/XX/XXXX. These letters include the following statements by BW Legal which I found alarming and I believe are misleading and untrue:
“Final Notice” letter;
(1) “In the event our client issues County Court Proceedings, and successfully obtains a County Court Judgement (“CCJ”)….”

(2) They state that their client also ''reserves the right to commence enforcement proceedings...for recovery of the CCJ award'' as if a CCJ is a fait accompli.

(3) “You should also note that if your claim has already been processed through and Independent Appeal Service (“IAS”) and an IAS has dismissed your appeal, then it is likely that a County Court will come to a similar conclusion and your defence will be unsuccessful.”

(4) “Our client now requires full payment of the Balance within 10 days from the date of this letter, this date being, 12 July 2016, failing which our client has instructed us to commence County Court proceedings against you for recovery of the Balance. For the avoidance of doubt the Balance relates to the £100.00 parking charge and £54.00 for our client’s initial legal fees, which were detailed in the car park terms and conditions.”

(5) They also make reference to the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 where they say, ''the Supreme Court held that parking charges were a legitimate commercial interest'' and that ''this case eliminates any defence'' I might have should the matter go to court.

CSA Complaint response letter;
(1A) “As there has been an offence committed, you are liable for the outstanding Balance due.”

(2A) “Our Client will be relying on the case of Elliot v Loake [1982] where it was held that there is a presumption that the registered keeper of the vehicle is the driver and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this presumption is reasonable.”

(3A) Again reference to the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 where they say, ''the Supreme Court held that parking charges were a legitimate commercial interest'' and that their legal fees “were detailed in the signage at the location of the PCN contravention”.

I am aware that those assertions and statements are contrary to the SRA’s Code of Conduct 2011, Chapter 11: Relations with third parties, specifically covered under Outcomes O(11.1) and Indicative Behaviours IB(11.7) and IB(11.8).

These statements take unfair advantage of the addressee’s lack of legal knowledge where they have not instructed a lawyer, by stating untruths and making unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims. I am an unrepresented consumer and was distressed to read the letter from BW Legal and was certainly misled by it. This complaint is now sent to the SRA as a result of the fact that BW Legal continue to threaten and mislead regardless of the fact that these statements breach the SRA Code and such conduct should not be allowed to continue.

Regarding statement (1) and (2) I am advised that BW Legal will know that, even if they were to bring County Court proceedings for their client against the addressee, and even if those were successful, they would not be an automatically granted CCJ against the addressee; of course a CCJ would only be obtained in such a situation if the addressee, after being taken to court successfully and after being ordered by the County Court to pay BW Legal’s client, would then still not pay.
It is unfounded and unsubstantiated for BW Legal to assert that this is a likely scenario and describe 'recovery of the CCJ Award' as if it is almost inevitable. This assertion is made to coerce the addressee of BW Legal’s letter into paying their demand. This is taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee and I was certainly alarmed and distressed to read such statements.

Statement (4) is a clear demand by BW Legal on behalf of their client for a sum of £54.00 that is not legally recoverable. BW Legal will know that it has been held countless times that when instructed to collect a simple debt, demanding from the debtor the debt recovery costs is taking unfair advantage since it cannot be said at that stage that such a cost is legally recoverable; particularly since those costs have not been substantiated at all. It is also part of the Civil Procedure Rules that charges for “Legal services” even if invoiced and paid are unrecoverable in the Small Claims Court. This is therefore again clearly taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee.

Statement (3) is a clear attempt at coercing myself in to believing that because an IAS might have agreed with the initial issue of the Parking Charge Notice, that a judge would reach the same decision so I “might as well not bother” with my appeal and I should just give in. I find it astounding that such terminology is acceptable within a legal letter.

Statements (5, 2A and 3A) are deliberately intended to mislead and are absolutely irresponsible. To inform a recipient of a letter about a parking charge which does not in any way match the facts of the Beavis or Loake cases that they have no defence because it has been 'eliminated' beggars belief and again, I was completely misled by this assertion.
Consumers are being coerced into paying charges which bear no relation to the circumstances of the fairly unique 'Beavis case', which I am advised the Supreme Court were at pains to 'Tweet' straight after their decision, turned on the specific legitimate interest of the landowner in a particular retail park, based on the clear terms on the signs in that car park alone. My case is nothing like that case, however if I was to believe BW Legal’s letter I would have thought - as I initially did, in a panic - that I have no defence and must just pay their client. A similar line of thought can be applied to the ‘Loake case’ in which, irrefutable evidence was presented that the driver was indeed the defendant. No such presumption of registered keeper being the driver was inferred or given, and should I have not been aware of this case, then again I would have immediately thought I had no ground to stand on.

Statement (1A) is, in its most simple form, a LIE. There has been no “offence” committed, and this is a clear breach of the SRA code of conduct. As a legally “competent” entity they should know the meaning of the word and it clearly does not apply to this matter. Should an offence have been committed they need to detail which statute has been broken and in what the clients capacity is as a prosecuting authority. BW Legal are clearly not acting within the SRA Principals.

It is understood that BW Legal is sending out identical Letters of Claim/Final Notices on an industrial scale (for the same client and for other private parking companies) to addressees all of whom will be legally unrepresented.

I would therefore respectfully request the SRA to take swift enforcement action to ensure that BW Legal stops issuing assertions and statements which are clearly used to coerce consumer recipients into paying unjustified and unenforceable demands.

The SRA has a list of principals in which I feel it is clear that BW Legal do not conform and are breaking on a daily basis the longer their tenure as an SRA member goes on. They do not act with integrity, they do not uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice, and they are not behaving in a way that maintains the trust of the public in the provision of legal services.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 6 Sep 2016 - 06:45
Post #1209190

Letters printed and ready to send to CSA and SRA. Now, just to put a short one together for the attention of BW Legal.

Should keep them quiet for a little while receiving that double whammy.

Posted by: Umkomaas Tue, 6 Sep 2016 - 09:16
Post #1209257

QUOTE
The SRA has a list of principals

Principles.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 20 Sep 2016 - 07:03
Post #1213410

Small update: Response from SRA received (pretty much template acknowledgement) regarding the complaint I've lodged.

Still waiting on a response from the CSA ref my second complaint.

Should keep them tied up nicely until November time though.

Posted by: BigAlC Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 08:06
Post #1417201

Update time:

After a hiatus of contact, the BW letters have started up again. I now have my second "Final Notice" letter from them. It's slightly changed from the first one I received but much the same drivel.

Am I safe in thinking that something like the following would be sufficient to keep the tennis going?

QUOTE
Thank you for your template letter titled “Final Notice” dated xxxx

I deny any debt to your client Vehicle Control Services.

I note your attempt to mislead me throughout your correspondence and, should the correct Letter Before Claim be issued, the various failings of your letter shall be defended in the small claims court.

When I receive a properly formatted Letter Before Claim in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims, I will provide a more detailed response. I will also, at that time, inform you of the documents and information that I require to make an informed decision.

Yours faithfully


I'm bored of the threatening letters now, and even the missus is laughing each time a BW envelope turns up now. They have lost in the car park in question before for the exact same reason as chasing me, so I have little worry about going to court.

TIA.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 08:32
Post #1417207

I would include the ref to the prior letters, and notice it is misleading ot issue multiple "letters bfore claim", and certainly falls squarely into the realms of harasssment.

You could also include their lost claims.

Posted by: BigAlC Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 09:22
Post #1417220

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 09:32) *
I would include the ref to the prior letters, and notice it is misleading ot issue multiple "letters bfore claim", and certainly falls squarely into the realms of harasssment.

You could also include their lost claims.


I shall do.

Is there a site I can find a list of all their court results? There was a user on here that went to court, won, but didn't put a case number up.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 12:49
Post #1417633

Well, the updated letter is drafted and will be dispatched later today (certificate of posting obtained obviously).

I shall let you know what happens next. cool.gif

Posted by: BigAlC Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 07:19
Post #1424418

Sure enough. I've now got my letter of claim. biggrin.gif

It's the usual garbage that is seen on all the other threads, and here is my response which I've created from various sources, both here and elsewhere,

A critique would be appreciated (see attachments)




A secondary question, If I respond towards the end of the due date, does this then prevent anything being issued until I get all documents back that I have requested?

Cheers!

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 12 Oct 2018 - 08:16
Post #1424440

Nothing prevents them issuing a claim
Nothing
If they pay the fee, it gets filed. Done.

Failing to follow the PAP you could argue should allow you to apply for, and get, a Stay on proceedings .The feee of £100 is then usually payable by them.

Posted by: BigAlC Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 12:17
Post #1425351

Thanks Nos!

I'm just doing a little more polishing on this letter in response to my LOC from BW Legal.

Going through my pack of documents since this all started (I've kept everything) there are various admissions of things from POFA to Ellliott vs Loake etc. Most interestingly though I have a couple of pictures which clearly show there is no restricted area where the vehicle was parked.

Can I / Should I refer to this "evidence" which they sent me ( I have pictures of my own to back this up ) and put a paragraph in basically saying your own "evidence" shows that the vehicle is not in a restricted area and as such you will lose at court due to your reason for issuing the invoice being invalid?

Another thing, do I need to fill out the "Reply Form" which gives me various tick boxes to select? Some say you do, and others say ignore it and just respond with the request for more information letter.

TIA.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 13:52
Post #1425379

Yes, point out their OWN pictures show that their claims of a "restricted area" are either a deliberate falsehood or incompetence. You suggest they refer back to their client and enquire as to which one they prefer.

You require a full explanation of how theire can be a "restricted area" when there is no such area marked, and how their client has come up with such an assertion
ALternatively, yuo will accept an apology and confirmation that they have cancelled any and all tickets and will cease processing your data.

No, you dont have to fill 0ut any form. It is entirely optional.

Posted by: BigAlC Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 14:35
Post #1425396

Once again, thanks.

Here is the paragraph:

QUOTE
I also refer you again back to your response letter to my complaint to the CSA dated XXxXXX in which you have given me copies of your client’s pictures of the vehicle parked in the alleged “restricted area” which they may intend to rely on in court. It is clear from these pictures that the vehicle is clearly not parked in such an area and these pictures are either a deliberate falsehood and attempt to mislead, or pure incompetence. I suggest you refer to your client and establish which one they prefer. I also require a full explanation on how there can be a “restricted area” when there is no such area marked, and how your client has come to this assertion. Please do not refer to “Parking Within a Marked Bay” as this is not the contravention code that your client has used to issue the Notice to Keeper.

Alternatively, I will accept a full apology from yourselves and your client, confirming that this ticket is cancelled, and both companies have ceased processing my data.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 14:55
Post #1425407

Do they give any reference numbers to the photos? Always be as specific as you can.
If we could see the photos - presumably a "restricted area" would have some form of markings, and the asbsnece of them would be prime facie proof the area cannot be rstricted in anyway. Seeing signs would be good as well.

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 06:24
Post #1425641

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 15:55) *
Do they give any reference numbers to the photos? Always be as specific as you can.
If we could see the photos - presumably a "restricted area" would have some form of markings, and the asbsnece of them would be prime facie proof the area cannot be rstricted in anyway. Seeing signs would be good as well.



No direct reference no. I could place annotation on them and refer to them myself.





Pretty clear that there are no restrictions in place or marked otherwise.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQA0b0yKYdjMw4uaeoYaDPZGS-oatbZyx7o0mAir40QEiQRDqdi - This link is taken from another persons thread on MSE, but is one of the relevant signs. If I interpret it correctly then even the sign states that restricted areas are marked.

TIA.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 09:03
Post #1425666

Its a terrible pic however it suggests that the no parking in ... would be dyl, walkways etc. Dont you have your own pictures (Im not going back through 5 pages to see why)
Annotate and reference them

Posted by: BigAlC Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 09:46
Post #1425677

I do have my own indeed.

I'll throw a few in for good measure and reference a case I've been given the access to, to really try and nip this now.

Posted by: sensai Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 20:55
Post #1448207

I'm also doing battle (as RK) with VCS. The rectangular area in question has a different kind of tarmac than the rest, I can only guess that it might have been intended for an over-spill area but never marked out. A view from overhead (Google Earth) seems to confirm this.

Posted by: BigAlC Fri, 3 May 2019 - 11:21
Post #1482364

Back again.

So after the many letters bounced between me and BW Legal, they left it with a "we are referring back to our client to see how they wish to proceed" and heard nothing more from them.

Then yesterday, I got a Letter Before Claim (big scary red letters) with VCS titled paper. So it looks like BW Legal have kicked this back to VCS as BW do not want to take it to court.

I presume that I should just send exactly the same rebuttal letter to VCS with appropriate changes to dates etc and send that off? This letter tennis is very fun.

Posted by: Lyndon Fri, 10 May 2019 - 18:33
Post #1484126

My son has also had a LBC from VCS from a supposed offence in 2015. Last letter we sent to BW Legal in response to their LBC was in May 2016 and never got a response at all. I can only assume they knew it wasn't worth proceeding and the LBC wasn't pukka as I pointed out to them!

Think VCS will be getting a lot of SAR requests to deal with as well as rebuttal letters pointing out their LBC are not correctmand requesting more information.


Posted by: Redivi Fri, 10 May 2019 - 18:59
Post #1484139

We've seen a lot of threads recently where VCS has been sending Letters of Claim for cases that BWL gave up

I've just had an email from BWL that tells me that the account is now closed
I'm keeping the file safe because I fully expect VCS to come back in a year or two

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)