Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ Help with Wright Hassall

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:13
Post #1166612

Hi all,

Apologies in advance - I'm new here and I know there are countless topics regarding these issues but I'm not sure what to do next.

In November 2015 I parked in the Abbey Walk car park in Selby (the Sainsburys one, in case anyone knows it). It was always free to park and is close to the town centre, as I was meeting a couple of friends for some food there. I arrived at around 7pm ish and left around 10.30.

I didn't think anything of it, so imagine my surprise when I received a letter from ZZPS dated 19th February 2016 saying I had an unpaid parking fine from the above. Turns out this car park is now managed by Vehicle Control Services on an ANPR sheme, which is not exactly well publicised (and by that I mean I couldnt see any signs up in the car park regarding said parking restrictions). I had never received any prior correspondence from VCS to advise that I had a parking fine or anything like that.

I wrote to both ZZPS and VCS, on the same day, disputing the charge as I had never received any prior notification and therefore could not appeal within the initial given period. I did originally research on here and a couple of other websites to help me gain some content for said letters, so said that I would not pay ZZPS as it's all speculative invoices, is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and there is significant lack of signage in the car park to show the parking restrictions.

I got the usual templated b*llocks letter back, refusing to answer any of my points that I raised, so I wrote to them again to deny the debt to ZZPS and refuse to deal with ZZPS, and demanded they respond fully to the issues and points that I raised in my initial letter, saying that if I didnt hear from them within 14 days then I'd consider the matter closed.

So, yesterday, I receive a letter in the post from Wright Hassall, dated 29th March (but only arrived yesterday - convenient?) - which I have scanned and attached. This looks different to the usual WH templated letters that I have seen people posting about on here and elsewhere - so I am completely unsure how to respond.

Obviously I want to completely stand my ground and have no intention of paying this - I'm just worried about it getting to the CCJ stage.

Is there anyone who could please provide me with some help on how to respond to this WH letter? I'm a bit of a newbie with these kinds of things so anything in laymans terms would be much appreciated.

Thank you!

 

Posted by: freddy1 Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:19
Post #1166616

ok , whats different?

we "may" suggest etc etc

hot air and wind

Posted by: dandyman Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:20
Post #1166617

This is a standard ZZPS-pretending-to-be-Wright Hassall debt collector letter.

You can either ignore it, or search the forum for a "Gan special" reply. If you do decide to reply, post your text up here for comment first.

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:26
Post #1166618

Thanks guys - there appears to be so many letters though, I'm just not sure which ones to use!

Can anyone point me in the direction of a thread that contains a good template letter that I could use to reply to this with?

Sorry if this seems lazy or anything - I'm just completely new to this kind of thing and don't know where to start!!!

Posted by: Gan Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:29
Post #1166619

They don't invite you to discuss it, only pay

You've already been for a ride on the WH merry-go-round so you know that they will ignore yet another letter

and demanded they respond fully to the issues and points that I raised in my initial letter, saying that if I didn't hear from them within 14 days then I'd consider the matter closed.

Could consider it closed and not bother to reply

Posted by: freddy1 Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:30
Post #1166620

Dear Right hastle ,

please can I refer you to Arkell v. Pressdram

love n kisses

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:32
Post #1166623

Thanks Gan - would you say the best course of action then would be to just ignore this?

I guess I'd rather write to them and demand a full response and basically calling them out on their BS, it would probably make me feel more comfortable, but I just don't know :S

Posted by: Gan Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:38
Post #1166626

I suggest that you read about Arkell v Pressdram for a chuckle but don't send it

In the event of legal action, the letter would form part of the document trail

As far as the court will be concerned, Wright Hassall is a respectable firm of solicitors
It specialises in parking law and has been appointed by the British Parking Association to resolve several thousands of outstanding parking appeals

Telling it to F*** Off is not a good idea

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 08:49
Post #1166631

Ha, that is brilliant...

So how should I proceed with the letter I have got from WH then? I just find it all quite intimidating and such, so I guess I'd rather reply than not if there is a good template somewhere round here that I can use? But if you's suggest just ignoring it then I can do I guess... how many letters from WH do you normally get before they give up?

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 09:03
Post #1166637

It is meant to be intimidating, you are engaging and they aim to wear you down.

Either file and ignore or send them a..

"In accordance with my previous letter of the DD/YY, you have failed to validate any basis for the claim, therefore I consider the matter closed."

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 10:05
Post #1166661

Ok thanks. How about something like the following, does this sound ok?

Dear Wright Hassall,

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

In accordance with my previous correspondence to your client, ZZPS Limited, and their client, Vehicle Control Services, on both the 26th February 2016 and 22nd March 2016, you have failed to validate any basis of the claim. I raised numerous questions regarding the alleged parking contravention, none of which have been answered.

I also note that, following my previous letter, I had not received a response within the 14 day period that I had provided. As such, for both of these reasons, I now consider this matter closed.

For the record, I deny any debt to yourselves or ZZPS Limited, and therefore instruct you to immediately refer this matter back to the original client, Vehicle Control Services, and desist contacting me. Any further correspondence to me, aside from a confirmation that this matter has now been closed, will be deemed as harassment as reported using the appropriate channels.

Yours Faithfully,

Blah blah

Posted by: Gan Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 10:46
Post #1166673

will be deemed as harassment as reported using the appropriate channels noted but I will not reply

Unless you're prepared to carry out the threat and not only report but issue a claim

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 10:57
Post #1166678

Ok no worries, thank you

Apart from that, does the rest of it read ok though?

Posted by: dandyman Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 10:59
Post #1166680

Nah, no good at all.

If you are going to write at all:

I refer to your letter dated ??????, ref ???????.

You state that your client is ZZPS Limited. I require you to explain the basis of that company's claim against me and how it comes to believe it has any standing to make such a claim.

Please provide this explanation, with supporting documentation, within 7 days. Any other response (or lack of response) will be reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority as a breach under Chapter 11 of your Code of Practice.

I require you to treat this matter as a formal complaint and refer it to your Compliance Officer.


If it were me I would put this in writing (yes, on paper!) and send individual copies separately, and by name, to every person on this page who appears from their job title to hold a senior position:

https://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/our-people/people/

It is my belief that the debt collection arm of Wright Hassall (which is not staffed by legal professionals) has "gone rogue" in its eagerness for fees and commissions from the private parking scum. If this is brought to the attention of the senior real lawyers at the firm often enough and forcefully enough they might wake up to how their firm's name is being dragged through the mud by its association with parking scum and their scum debt collectors.

What would be really good would be if someone in receipt of such a WH letter, who happens to live in their locality (they are in Leamington), wrote to the senior staff stating that he will never consider using such a disreputable firm for conveyancing, probate or any other legal services at all. The potential loss of just one important customer on the legal side would hugely outweigh the pitiful revenue stream they must be getting from ZZPS and the parking scum.

Or just ignore them.

Posted by: Gan Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:07
Post #1166685

I'm reading the OP's account to mean that he's already sent a version of those questions

Wright Hassall has been reported to the SRA on numerous occasions for these letters
As far as the SRA are concerned they've done nothing wrong

As they're writing letters in their debt collector rather than solicitor capacity, a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman might be a better approach

Posted by: freddy1 Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:18
Post #1166687

Write hastle are NOT debt collectors , according to the BPA



Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:37
Post #1166693

What Gan said - I've already asked variants of questions with no response. I'll make some changes and send a letter to advise them, and if I dont receive a response within 14 days then I will consider the matter closed.

If they then respond, still not answering what I asked for, I'll then go down a more militant route with the SRA/Ombudsman etc...

I think that would seem a reasonable approach?

Posted by: dandyman Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:47
Post #1166700

QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:07) *
I'm reading the OP's account to mean that he's already sent a version of those questions

Not to Right Hassle though. But he's the one who wants to write something, personally I'd ignore it.

QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:07) *
Wright Hassall has been reported to the SRA on numerous occasions for these letters
As far as the SRA are concerned they've done nothing wrong

I know, but constant dropping wears away a stone.

QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 11:07) *
As they're writing letters in their debt collector rather than solicitor capacity, a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman might be a better approach

The letters are from Wright Hassall LLP, that's a law firm, and they are trying to use their status as a law firm to intimidate people. Accordingly they should be held accountable as a law firm. I'm not aware that the Financial Ombudsman has any jurisdiction over debt collection activities for non-regulated debt.

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 12 Apr 2016 - 13:24
Post #1166738

Made a few changes... how about this instead then?

Dear Wright Hassall,

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

In accordance with my previous correspondence to your client, ZZPS Limited, and their client, Vehicle Control Services, on both the 26th February 2016 and 22nd March 2016, you have failed to validate any basis of the claim. I raised numerous questions regarding the alleged parking contravention, none of which have been answered.

On your recent letter to me, you also state that your client is ZZPS Limited. I require you to explain the basis of that company's claim against me, and how it comes to believe it has any standing to make such a claim; a simple suggestion that ZZPS has this will be deemed unsatisfactory. I believe that if anyone has any alleged standing with me whatsoever, it would be Vehicle Control Services, which is not your client.

I also note that, following my previous letter on 22nd March 2016, I had not received a response within the 14 day period that I had provided. As such, for both of these reasons, I now consider this matter closed.

For the record, I deny any debt to yourselves or ZZPS Limited, and therefore instruct you to immediately refer this matter back to the original client, Vehicle Control Services, and desist contacting me. Any further correspondence to me will be noted but I will not reply, unless it provides full responses to my points raised, and a confirmation that this matter has now been closed.

Yours Faithfully,

Blah blah

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 08:35
Post #1168661

Hi again chaps,

So over the weekend I received a letter in the post from Wright Hassall. It's the bog standard template and answers none of my questions.

My worry is that the letter is titled "Letter Before Claim" - I know that people have said never to ignore these before, so I'm not sure how to approach it?

Any advice would be much appreciated - thank you?

Posted by: Jlc Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 08:45
Post #1168663

If they are ignoring your legitimate attempts to resolve the matter prior to proceedings then you tell them so and that such behaviour could be deemed unreasonable and could impact their ability to claim (already limited) costs even if they won.

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 09:17
Post #1168668

Whats the best way to phrase stuff like that? Or is there an existing letter for this kind of thing that I could use?

I dont want to go in too "angry" as obviously they are a solicitors, which may affect my corner if it does go further.

Do I threaten harrassment or the SRA or taking it higher within their own company?

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 09:55
Post #1168680

Is it a real letter before claim, we have seen many headed this that are not!

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 10:01
Post #1168685

Good point - it just looks like a bog standard template letter from WH, so I'm not 100% sure now.

The letter is at home and I'm currently not, so will take a scan of it tonight and post it in here for review.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 11:07
Post #1168717

However WH (ZZPS) confirmed a tone pooint that if it stats "formal letter of claim" or similar, then it si a LBA

A simple response of two or three lines. nothing more. State you will draw the courts attention to their unreasonable behaaviour and will ask for an exceptional costs order (if you want to go in heavy)

The SRA do gak. Theyre pretty useless.

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 11:07
Post #1168718

...just noticed a reference number in the top left corner of the WH letter. If this uniquely identifies you and should WH be reading this I suggest you redact it.

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 11:14
Post #1168724

Edited the attachment now - thank you for pointing that out

I'll get a copy of the WH letter tonight and post it on here - will then draft a response and check it here before I send it on

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 11:29
Post #1168733

When you first wrote to VCS did you ask them for a copy of the original PCN and did they send it. If so would you upload it here - redacted of course. If not it's not unreasonable to write to them again, pointing out you have never seen a PCN so would like a copy since you need to know precisely what the charge relates to.

What about the signage? Have you got pictures and if so would you upload these too. You never know but this may be relevant.

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 11:37
Post #1168739

I didnt ask for a copy of the original PCN I'm afraid - just that I hadnt received it and therefore could not appeal within the 14 days etc. From other topics I have read on here though, if I were to write to VCS they'll just refuse to help me as the case went to ZZPS and is now with WH?

I have a picture of the entry to the car park which confirms no signage - however this is taken from the internet so may be slightly out of date. I have not been back since, however, I may go one evening this week as I messaged the retailer who the car park "belongs to" and they said to go in with the letters and see if they can do anything about it...

Posted by: hexaflexagon Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 11:54
Post #1168752

QUOTE (alexsyl @ Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 12:37) *
I didnt ask for a copy of the original PCN I'm afraid - just that I hadn't received it and therefore could not appeal within the 14 days etc. From other topics I have read on here though, if I were to write to VCS they'll just refuse to help me as the case went to ZZPS and is now with WH?


Nevertheless it's VCS who are the claimants and if they refuse to let you have a document which is the entire basis of their claim then the fact that this reasonable request has not been met would not impress a court should it ever get that far. It can only be to your advantage to request this and you have nothing to lose. Copy WH in on the correspondence too.

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 18 Apr 2016 - 13:15
Post #1168787

Righto, thank you. Will get the letter tonight and post it up here, then can draft some replies and get them sent. Thank you

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 19 Apr 2016 - 07:20
Post #1169055

First class, free proof of posting, every time you send through the post smile.gif

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 19 Apr 2016 - 08:19
Post #1169067

So yesterday I got home and had another letter from WH, basically saying that in light of my letter questioning their case, they have referred it back to the client and my case is on hold pending their responses.

In light of this, would you now not reply, until I receive a further letter with the "findings" (which there are none) from their case, or would you still reply anyway?

Copies of both letters are in the same attachment with any relevant details blanked out.

 WH_letters_april_2016.pdf ( 391.29K ) : 326

Posted by: hexaflexagon Tue, 19 Apr 2016 - 08:31
Post #1169069

I see no point in responding to this letter. You might want to allude to it in the letter mentioned earlier that you're sending to VCS and copying to WH.

Also for a sanity check upload the letter you intend sending to VCS to this thread first,

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 19 Apr 2016 - 08:59
Post #1169074

Hows about the following?

Also, can anyone confirm for my reference, is the Letter Before Claim I received from WH a legitimate one, or one of the fake ones?


Dear Vehicle Control Services

Ref: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

In light of an ongoing issue with regards to an alleged packing infringement at xxxxxxxx on xx/xx/xxxx, I stated to you in my initial letter of xx/xx/xxxx that I had never received an initial parking charge notice, and the further letter from ZZPS was the first I had ever heard of it, and thus was unable to appeal within the initial 14-day period. I would therefore like to request that you send me an original copy of the parking charge notice within the next 14 days please.

This issue is currently being contested with Wright Hassall solicitors (a copy of this letter has been sent on to them for reference), and they have informed me that the case is currently on hold pending investigation with their client (ZZPS Limited).

Please note that if I do not receive this within the next 14 days as stated above, then I will consider this matter closed and no further action will be taken.

Yours faithfully,

xxxxxxxxx

Posted by: Gan Tue, 19 Apr 2016 - 09:22
Post #1169077

QUOTE (alexsyl @ Tue, 19 Apr 2016 - 09:59) *
Hows about the following?

Also, can anyone confirm for my reference, is the Letter Before Claim I received from WH a legitimate one, or one of the fake ones?

Regard it as genuine

Dear Vehicle Control Services

Ref: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

In light of an ongoing issue with regards to an alleged packing infringement at xxxxxxxx on xx/xx/xxxx, I stated to you in my initial letter of xx/xx/xxxx that I had never received an initial parking charge notice, and the further letter from ZZPS was the first I had ever heard of it, and thus was unable to appeal within the initial 14-day period.

This issue is currently being contested with I have received a Formal Letter Before Claim from Wright Hassall solicitors (a copy of this letter has been sent on to them for reference), and they who have since informed me that the case is currently on hold pending investigation with their client (ZZPS Limited). I therefore require an original copy of the parking charge notice. Copies of their letters are enclosed.

Please note that if I do not receive this within the next 14 days as stated above, then I will consider this matter closed and no further action will be taken.
Please provide this within ten days so that I can provide a detailed response to the Letter Before Claim.

Thank You

Yours faithfully,

xxxxxxxxx

cc Wright Hassall solicitors

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 19 Apr 2016 - 09:43
Post #1169081

Thank you - will get these sent off today

Something to add - I will be imminently changing address, and although I have a mail redirection on, should I inform these clowns of my new address or not?

Posted by: Raxiel Tue, 19 Apr 2016 - 09:44
Post #1169083

You have a typo:

QUOTE
with regards to an alleged packing infringement

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 19 Apr 2016 - 09:53
Post #1169085

thanks - I had noticed and corrected it in my actual letter smile.gif

Posted by: Gan Tue, 19 Apr 2016 - 10:50
Post #1169095

Yes

Make sure that you make the new address very clear to both Wright Hassall

Keep a copy of the letter and get a receipt from the Post Office when you send it

That way, you eliminate the risk of not receiving the claim if the re-direction fails

You can also prove that they're entirely responsible and therefore liable for the cost of a set aside application if they still send it to the old address

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 19 Apr 2016 - 11:01
Post #1169097

No problem, will do

Thanks for your help

Posted by: Dave65 Wed, 27 Apr 2016 - 16:32
Post #1171653

Been in the car park today and taken photo of signs.
The first paragraph is-
"Any vehicle/driver remaining in the car park 10 minutes after entry is subject to and agrees in full to the Terms and Conditions. The maximum stay period is calculated from the time the vehicle enters the car park to the time it exits”

Posted by: dandyman Thu, 28 Apr 2016 - 07:06
Post #1171804

Going back to the "Formal Letter Before Claim", it is no such thing. Read it carefully, and note that nowhere does it state who their client is. This is because it's still ZZPS, and they know perfectly well that ZZPS cannot and will not bring a claim.

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 28 Apr 2016 - 07:41
Post #1171813

Dave, any chance you could post a picture of the signage please? Also, are they really obvious? Bearing in mind when the alleged contravention occurred, it was November, on an evening, and everywhere was dark...

Have had no response as yet from VCS when I requested a copy of the original PCN, so will wait to hear from them until after the bank holiday weekend and then look at this again.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 28 Apr 2016 - 08:50
Post #1171822

Indeed, if there is no lighting on the signs, they will struggle to claim they are visible

Posted by: Dave65 Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - 07:02
Post #1172109

I was at my daughters last few days close to Selby. I looked around the car park and to my recollection the signs were on posts but no lights over the signs. I`ll post up a photo of the sign later today.

Posted by: alexsyl Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - 07:28
Post #1172122

No worries, thank you

Posted by: Dave65 Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - 19:04
Post #1172320

Photo of sign on a post. Been trying to post through tinypic, so hope it works. Can be seen during daylight.


Just to add, my daughter said she was aware of quiet a few people who have had these PCN on a evening. Some been to the restaurants in the Main Street.

Posted by: dandyman Sat, 30 Apr 2016 - 08:26
Post #1172395

Bit easier to read like this. Notice where the £100 charge is specified? No? That's because it's buried in the small print right at the bottom. Clear failure of one of the Beavis tests.


Posted by: Dave65 Sat, 30 Apr 2016 - 09:40
Post #1172410

Well spotted dandyman, should the discounted rate be stipulated also if paid within 14 days?

Posted by: The Rookie Sun, 1 May 2016 - 12:46
Post #1172589

Not necesarily, no.

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 3 May 2016 - 07:37
Post #1172810

So that sign does not stack up to BPA Legislation then, is that right?

Also notice that the signs do not anywhere mention use of ANPR cameras or what they are going to be used for - that will go in my favour too right?

Also, thank you for adding Dave - much appreciated

Posted by: DBC Tue, 3 May 2016 - 07:43
Post #1172811

VCS are not a BPA member . Anyway there is no such thing as "legislation" just a set of rules that have no basis in law.

Posted by: Dave65 Tue, 3 May 2016 - 07:44
Post #1172812

The camera icon does have ANPR on it unfortunately.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 3 May 2016 - 09:20
Post #1172835

QUOTE (DBC @ Tue, 3 May 2016 - 08:43) *
VCS are not a BPA member . Anyway there is no such thing as "legislation" just a set of rules that have no basis in law.

The Supreme court decided they (the Codes of Practice) were 'effectively binding'.....

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 3 May 2016 - 09:29
Post #1172837

Sorry, I'm slightly confused now - bit of a newbie when it comes to this kind of thing.

The way I see it now, is that, as the £100 fee is in small print, this doesn't meet the required standards of a parking sign. Is that correct? There is also no mention of what the ANPR is going to be used for, which I believe is also a requirement? Can someone please clarify for me?

Also - more than 10 days have now passed since I wrote to VCS and asked them to re-issue a copy of the original PCN which I never received. I have not heard back from them, or heard any more from Wright Hassall to chase me up (last letter from them was to confirm this was on hold pending their client) - do I basically just wait to hear back now and hope they don't, or shall I write again to chase them?

Posted by: dandyman Tue, 3 May 2016 - 11:00
Post #1172875

QUOTE (alexsyl @ Tue, 3 May 2016 - 09:29) *
The way I see it now, is that, as the £100 fee is in small print, this doesn't meet the required standards of a parking sign. Is that correct?

No. What it means is that it doesn't meet the standards for creating a binding contract. It's well-established that a clause seriously to the detriment of one party must be prominent, and the Supreme Court in Beavis made quite a play about the prominence of the signs, including the £85 charge. These VCS signs don't even begin to stack up (as they know perfectly well, because their sister company once suffered a high-profile defeat on rubbish signage when the judge actually went to the car park to have a look for herself).

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 3 May 2016 - 11:11
Post #1172883

Excellent! Just what I like to hear! Thank you dandyman!

Anyone got any ideas on what I should do with regards to either waiting or replying any further?

Posted by: alexsyl Fri, 6 May 2016 - 10:41
Post #1173805

Hi chaps

Its now been over 2 weeks and still no response from VCS regarding my request for a copy of the original PCN.

Shall I chase them for this? Or wait for a response? Or write back and say "as you have not met my deadline I now consider this matter closed etc"?

Any advice appreciated - thank you

Posted by: Gan Fri, 6 May 2016 - 11:00
Post #1173808

Wait for the next letter from ZZPS/WH and reply that until you receive a copy of the original PCN that you've requested from their client, there's nothing to discuss.

Suggest that they remind their client that you're waiting

Posted by: Dave65 Fri, 6 May 2016 - 18:27
Post #1173912

Listen to Gan, and If you write make sure you sent letter 1st class and get proof of posting at post office "certificate of posting" this is free. Very important.

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 9 May 2016 - 07:41
Post #1174358

Thanks guys, will wait for the next letter from them then.

All my letters are sent with proof of posting/sign on delivery so no problems there.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 9 May 2016 - 07:49
Post #1174359

Don't use sign on delivery, or they won't and your letter won't be delivered, hence why you are being told to use free proof of postage.

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 9 May 2016 - 07:59
Post #1174360

Ok will bear that in mind - thank you

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 12 May 2016 - 09:45
Post #1175301

Hi chaps,

Still nothing in response to any of my last letters to VCS etc requesting a copy of the original PCN. Do I just continue to wait?

Many thanks

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 12 May 2016 - 10:42
Post #1175324

Yes

You have been reasonable, and have engaged with them.

If they do nothing - you win
If they donothign gor ages - well, they look mighty unreasonable, dont they? So even if you lost, somehow, you would have a good chance of "winning" overall as you might get costs.

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 12 May 2016 - 13:40
Post #1175351

No probs - thank you

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 14 Jun 2016 - 11:33
Post #1184531

Hi again chaps.

Now well over another month and I have still heard nothing further from WH or VCS, either to further the "claim", or provide a copy of the original PCN I requested.

Shall I continue to wait and leave this, or is it worth writing and saying that I now consider this matter closed?

Cheers for all your help!

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 14 Jun 2016 - 11:40
Post #1184535

Writing would be a waste of a stamp, you are either in the 'too difficult' pile or the 'consider action' writing now won't change that.

Posted by: dandyman Tue, 14 Jun 2016 - 11:42
Post #1184536

Agreed, don't prod them, there is nothing you can say that will influence whatever they have decided (or will decide) to do with your "case". Hopefully you are now in the "beware, this one bites" pile.

Posted by: Fluffykins Tue, 14 Jun 2016 - 12:14
Post #1184545

It never pays to wake the crazy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/07/bofh_2014_episode_1/

Lots more here to keep your mind off Blight Pastel

http://www.theregister.co.uk/data_centre/bofh/

Enjoy


Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 14 Jun 2016 - 14:13
Post #1184595

Great stuff, cheers guys (Y)

Posted by: Dave65 Sun, 19 Jun 2016 - 08:40
Post #1185998

While your waiting it may be worth it to ask/email Selby council if this PPC has planning consent for the anpr system and advertising consent for the signage around the site. I`ve read a few threads where some of these cretins don`t have the relevant consent. It would add to ammunition in your belt.

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 20 Jun 2016 - 08:25
Post #1186248

Good shout - thanks Dave!

Posted by: Lynnzer Mon, 20 Jun 2016 - 08:39
Post #1186252

QUOTE (alexsyl @ Mon, 20 Jun 2016 - 09:25) *
Good shout - thanks Dave!

Amend this and send by email to the planning officer at the council.

Sir,
I wish to make a formal complaint on the situation regarding the parking management at the car park for the ****** car park site at (name the road or location

The basis of my complaint is that (name the PPC) (a parking management company) has been contracted for parking control and has erected ANPR cameras and signs to the car park entrance that appear not to have consent.

The signs face the public highway and are conspicuous to the general public.

I have seen no press announcements on planning application being requested. I have searched the Council's planning portal and found nothing at all to show that any permission has been sought for the placement of the signs.

I believe that a breach of the The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007) has therefore been carried out.

I request that you take this matter under your consideration to bring the illegal situation into control by demanding that (the company) remove the signs until such time as planning consent has been made. I understand that the council may take a lenient view of this matter and allow a retrospective application. While you may not wish to take legal action against the management company, I would suggest that an application by (the company) for the consent for the signs should be hastily made and a failure of that should be followed up with removal of the signs from the site.
Sincerely

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 07:47
Post #1188750

Hello,

so I finally heard back from the council, who informed me that the car park is managed by an agent called Phoenix Beard and that I should get in touch with them.

I duly sent Phoenix Beard an email asking the same question and received the following response:

"I refer to your recent email and would advise that VCS are employed by us to manage the car park at the retail park. This includes signage and any other required consents. Thank you"

Still not had any responses from WH or VCS so I'm inclined to let the sleeping dogs lie now...

Posted by: ostell Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 08:02
Post #1188755

So did the council actually say whether consent for the cameras and signs has been applied for and given?

I had this understanding that signs needed something called advertising consent and without it the erection of the signs is a criminal event. Or something like that

Posted by: Dave65 Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 09:08
Post #1188768

Well it looks like the Planning dept have sloping shoulders, I would ask for a YES or NO answer. If same comes back, then may be a FOI request.

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 10:32
Post #1188796

I'll go back to the council and ask. Cheers guys

Posted by: dandyman Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 11:39
Post #1188823

If the council officers continue to play dumb get one of your councillors to kick them.

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 11:49
Post #1188825

I've now got an email address for the planning and enforcement team, so waiting for a response from them...

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 08:23
Post #1208822

Hi again all,

As I had not heard anything further from VCS in a number of months I had (wrongly) assumed that this was now all sorted.

Had a letter in the post over the weekend from VCS, advising that they have now passed the case to BW Legal (yet another legal firm I'm supposed to now deal with?) and that I should contact them. There is also a letter from BW in the same envelope instructing me to contact them within 16 days of their letter dates 31st August to arrange payment.

Copies of both letters, with personal details and reference numbers blanked out, will be posted below Something else to note is they're taken to spelling my name wrong - would that matter in any way?

Please can anyone shed any light on who this BW lot are, and how I best proceed from here? Are these guys a legitimate outfit and should I be worried? Or is it just another lot of clowns like ZZPS/WH?

Little bit worried about all this now, thought it would have died a death!

Thanks guys.

Posted by: ManxRed Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 08:26
Post #1208824

Do you have the envelope the letters came in? Does it have a dated postmark?

The name spelling thing isn't relevant.

There are dozens and dozens of threads on here right now (on this first page) about BW Legal. Or put VCS BW Legal in the search box in the top right hand corner of the page.

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 08:31
Post #1208825

Can't seem to upload the letters - so here's links to them instead:

VCS Letter: http://i1022.photobucket.com/albums/af344/aglxs20/Letter%20from%20VCS%2031082016.jpg
BW Legal Letter: http://i1022.photobucket.com/albums/af344/aglxs20/Letter%20from%20BW%2031082016.jpg

Any advice greatly appreciated. Thanks

Manxred: Envelope is at home, no dated postmark. Just both letters have 31st August on them but arrived over the weekend.

Will have a look through some other threads in the meantime though, thanks

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 10:06
Post #1208859

Reading a few other threads and all the various different info is confusing me immensely!

At the moment I'm not even sure who to write back to - VCS or BWL?

I've also never mentioned the driver before - stated I am the keeper but never mentioned the driver. I presume its now too late to use that and POFA as an argument?

Posted by: Jlc Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 10:15
Post #1208866

It's with BWL.

They don't use PoFA which means they can only pursue the driver. They pursue the keeper under the presumption they were driving but if they weren't then they have no cause of action. However, without providing 'proof' that the keeper was not driving they are likely to issue a claim anyway.

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 10:22
Post #1208868

Thanks jlc - I presume the fact that I've never used the keeper/driver/POFA argument before, means its too late for me to be able to use that one now?

Posted by: Jlc Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 11:18
Post #1208888

QUOTE (alexsyl @ Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 11:22) *
Thanks jlc - I presume the fact that I've never used the keeper/driver/POFA argument before, means its too late for me to be able to use that one now?

No, never too late.

If the matter went to court then they would have to show the keeper was driving (on the balance of probabilities).

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 14:31
Post #1208978

Righto, I've had a look through a few topics and drafted roughly the below letter. Please could someone more well versed than me (basically anyone on here, haha) take a look and see if this looks ok to send?

Please could someone also take a look at the letters that I have received above and confirm if this is a genuine letter before action or if its just more scaremongering?




Dear BW Legal,

Your Ref: XXXXXXXXXX

I refer to your letter dated 31st August 2016. Please note that I deny any debt to your client, Vehicle Control Services (VCS).

A copy of my letter to VCS explaining the reasons why I deny the debt is enclosed for your reference. At no point has your client ever addressed any of the aspects of my complaint, which I deem entirely unacceptable.

Please also note that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, however I have never advised the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, and am under no obligation to do so. As the driver of the vehicle was not me, the parking charge and your administration and/or debt recovery charges are none of my concern. Your client has failed to meet the conditions of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to recover the parking charge from the keeper.

In addition, it should not be necessary for a consumer to remind you that your £54 charge for legal expenses cannot be recovered in the Small Claims court. I also note your misrepresentation of the consequences of an adverse judgement. You are in breach of Chapter 11 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct; I refer you specifically to Indicative Behaviours IB 11.7 and 11.8.

As I have no contract with you or VCS as the keeper of the vehicle, I demand for all my personal details to be erased from your file and for you to desist contacting me again, unless it is to confirm that this matter is now closed and no monies are owed. Please also note that failure to do this will result in complaints to the SRA and CSA regarding your practice.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXX

Enc - copy of earlier complaint to VCS/WH

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 7 Sep 2016 - 08:52
Post #1209626

Hi guys

Sorry to ask again but please could I have a little bit of critique on the above letter and see if it seems ok to send?

Just a bit worried about this in general so hoping someone can point me in the right direction with it?

Thank you

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 7 Sep 2016 - 10:40
Post #1209656

Sorry for another add - slight amendments to my letter - any critique on the below please? Want to get this posted asap if possible, I know I shouldnt but I am a bit worried about this.

I'm also due to go on holiday on 16th for 10 days - is it worth adding that in too so they are aware that I will not respond during that period?




Dear BW Legal,

Your Ref: XXXXXXXXXX

I refer to your letter dated 31st August 2016. Please note that I deny any debt to your client, Vehicle Control Services (VCS).

A copy of my letter to VCS explaining the reasons why I deny the debt is enclosed for your reference. At no point has your client ever addressed any of the aspects of my complaint, which I deem entirely unacceptable.

Please also note that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, however I have never advised the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, and am under no obligation to do so. As the driver of the vehicle was not me, the parking charge and your administration and/or debt recovery charges are none of my concern. Your client has failed to meet the conditions of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to recover the parking charge from the keeper.

In addition, it should not be necessary for a consumer to remind you that your £54 charge for legal expenses cannot be recovered in the Small Claims court. I also note your misrepresentation of the consequences of an adverse judgement. You are in breach of Chapter 11 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct; I refer you specifically to Indicative Behaviours IB 11.7 and 11.8.

As I have no contract with you or VCS as the keeper of the vehicle, I demand for all my personal details to be erased from your file and for you to desist contacting me again, unless it is to confirm that this matter is now closed and no monies are owed. Please also note that failure to do this will result in complaints to the SRA and CSA regarding your practice.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXX

Enc - copy of earlier complaint to VCS/WH

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 28 Sep 2016 - 14:48
Post #1215857

Afternoon,

Decided to split from my old topic as it got a bit lengthy and messy so hope you don't mind (original thread at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105289 if required).

Abridged version:

Driver on ANPR camera at Abbey Walk, Selby in November 2015, Sunday evening at around 10pm for exceeding 2 hour max stay
No visible signs to advise of parking times or restrictions
No original PCN received
Letters from ZZPS and Wright Hassall responded to and charges denied as no original PCN had been received and signs not obvious
Letter from Wright Hassall dated April 2016 confirming the case is on hold pending further investigation
Wrote to VCS at end of April 2016 requesting copy of original PCN and no response received
Nothing further for 5 months until BW Legal letter received approx 2-3 weeks ago
Response sent denying all charges and that keeper was not the driver and I still never received original PCN etc from VCS, and to not contact me again
Letter back from BWL - copy attached in below link (advising keeper not driver doesnt matter, Elliot v Loake etc)

Please could someone help me draft up a response as it seems a bit different to the other bog standard template letters I have seen on here? It seems like a semi-non-templated letter from them (for once) so would be grateful for any advice as I am a complete newbie at these kind of things?

Many thanks!

http://s1022.photobucket.com/user/aglxs20/media/Letter%20from%20BW%2028092016.jpg.html

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 28 Sep 2016 - 15:01
Post #1215860

No, thats the same letter others have received. At least half a dozen I reckon.

You agreed to one case, one thread. So you will now hit REPORT and get this combined.

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 28 Sep 2016 - 16:16
Post #1215894

Ok, sorry, will ask for them to be combined. Just thought it would be easiest to start a new abridged less messy version

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 29 Sep 2016 - 09:07
Post #1216052

No, thats isnt how it works. The discussion is now in one place, and your history of letters is now in one place. Noone will look for other threads.

I meant what I said about thsi being yet another standard letter from BW, merits nothing more exciting than a standard response.

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 29 Sep 2016 - 11:16
Post #1216096

No problem, thank you.

I've pieced together the following from some other threads I have read on here - please could people have a quick read and ensure this sounds ok to send?



Dear BW Legal

Ref: xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your letter dated xxxxxxxxxxx. I continue to deny any debt to Vehicle Control Services (VCS) and/or yourselves (BW Legal).

I note your misleading description of Elliott v Loake [1982]. In this instance, the court decided that there was evidence of the driver's identity and made no such presumption. It is for the claimant has to prove their case, not the defendant.

Contrary to what you state, I am also not obliged to disclose the details of the driver. The alleged contravention now happened nearly 12 months ago and I cannot reasonably expected to remember exactly who was driving at the time, so you have no right to continue to pursue me for these details.

I will not make any payment in the absence of a court judgement and any legal proceedings will be strongly defended.

My position is therefore unchanged and final. Please also note that under section 10 of the Data Protection Act (DPA) I request that you and your client (VCS) to cease processing my personal data within 21 days, and to confirm same by return of post. A failure to comply will be referred to the ICO with a view to suspending both you and your clients DPA registration.

Yours faithfully,

xxxxxxxxx

Posted by: ostell Thu, 29 Sep 2016 - 11:22
Post #1216100

there was irrefutable evidence

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 29 Sep 2016 - 11:52
Post #1216109

Thanks - will add that in.

Anything else that needs adding/removing etc before I send?

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 3 Oct 2016 - 10:48
Post #1216960

Hi guys

Sorry to keep asking but is there anything else worth adding/amending etc before I send?

Thanks!

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 4 Oct 2016 - 10:30
Post #1217243

It looks ok to me

You need to take some confidence on this yourself - the number of BW threads here mean you will not always get a personal response to just a set of letters. Theyre not that key, sadly.

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 4 Oct 2016 - 10:40
Post #1217247

No problem, thank you for your help.

Will get this posted off today.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 4 Oct 2016 - 11:58
Post #1217297

FIrst class, free proof of posting!


Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 4 Oct 2016 - 11:58
Post #1217298

Always do! smile.gif

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 24 Oct 2016 - 08:22
Post #1223184

Hi all,

So over the weekend I received the attached letter from BW Legal, saying "they acknowledge my position and will pursue their clients instructions to issue county court proceedings" etc etc.

How do I go from here - do I respond to that letter in any means? Do I complain to the SRA about previous conduct? Or do I simply wait for a properly formatted letter of claim to be sent to me? Is there anything I can be doing in the meantime?

Any advice would be appreciated,

Many thanks.

http://s1022.photobucket.com/user/aglxs20/media/Letter%20from%20BW%2024102016.jpg.html

Posted by: Gan Mon, 24 Oct 2016 - 08:50
Post #1223188

Don't reply

Complain to the SRA about the breaches of the Solicitors Code of Conduct - especially the £54 charge

BW Legal doesn't like cases that involve human intervention
It messes up their automated process that relies on targets caving in

They only charge VCS about £25
The £54 represents their profit margin

To play safe assume that a claim could go ahead
Go back to the car park and take plenty of photographs of the layout and wording of the signs
Take somebody with you who can stand next to signs for scale if they were too high to read

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 24 Oct 2016 - 08:54
Post #1223189

Thats great - thanks for your help. Will try and get back to the car park some time this week and get the photos etc.

On a side note, is there a basic "template" or guidelines to follow on a complaint to the SRA? I'm sure I've seen them on here somewhere before but can't seem to find them now, when I need them! If anyone can link them it would be much appreciated.

Cheers

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 24 Oct 2016 - 10:38
Post #1223209

Never mind, found it. Sending a complaint over to the SRA shortly!

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Mon, 24 Oct 2016 - 20:09
Post #1223368

Great - for other newbies an example SRA complaint is here in post #2, based on one written by a legally-qualified person:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107836

His complaint is still being reviewed and taken seriously by the SRA. By all means copy his writing style but only copy a full paragraph if you have had the same wording he is objecting to there in post #2. It is all about looking at the SRA Code and saying how the letters you have had, unfairly breach that Code.

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 25 Oct 2016 - 07:36
Post #1223461

Emailed it over to them yesterday smile.gif

Is it worth me, in the interim, writing back to BW Legal to say that I am reporting them to the SRA? Or is it best to not bother and wait for a proper letter of claim/court papers?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 25 Oct 2016 - 11:52
Post #1223539

theyre unlikely to reply, and your position is clear. No point continuing to talk to them as theyre not being at all reasonable or professional.

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 25 Oct 2016 - 11:55
Post #1223542

No worries, thanks.

So, I basically just wait for court papers etc now?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 25 Oct 2016 - 12:45
Post #1223565

No, you wait and see if they respond further. Dont chuck anything away, if in doubt post it here.

If they do issue a court claim now theyre on even dodgier ground.

If they do issue one the Particulars of Claim (you should start making sure you know the right terms smile.gif) will be terrible - they dont write them as they should do according to CPR16.4 (from memory) nor PD7.3 - 7.5 So you will as part of your defence basically ask the court to strike the claim because they didnt bother to list enough detail tpo let you defend a claim. This HAS HAPPENED - see the parking pranksters blog.

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 25 Oct 2016 - 13:14
Post #1223576

Cool - useful info, thank you. Will wait for further correspondence in the meantime then smile.gif

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 2 Nov 2016 - 09:52
Post #1226258

Morning all,

Just had a response from the SRA - looks like a generic one to me? But at least its hopefully putting up a bit of a fight and scaring BWL into the fact that I will robustly defend my corner! Nothing else from BWL regarding taking me to court since my last post anyway.

Email from SRA copied and pasted below for reference.

Your report about B W Legal Services Limited
Thank you for your email dated 24 October 2016.
We have assessed the information that you have sent us about B W Legal Services and
their debt collection for car park violation fees.
You have reported that the firm may be taking advantage of unrepresented third parties.
You are concerned that their letters are misleading and they are attempting to recover costs
that are not legally recoverable or not substantiated.
What happens next
We are aware of the issues that you have raised and we are presently investigating them. At
the end of our investigation, we may decide:
 we need to ensure the breach does not happen again. We may ask the firm to
improve their systems and procedures;
 we need a formal investigation which could lead to sanctions or restrictions on the
way the firm operates;
 we do not need to take further action.
When will you hear from us
If we need any further information from you, we will contact you. Otherwise, we will write to
you when we have finished our investigation and tell you what we have decided to do.
Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 28 Jun 2017 - 13:22
Post #1295900

Hi again.

I finally - 7 months later - received a response from the SRA. Basically just a generic template letter that says "Thanks for your complaint, we've investigated it along with some others and we don't believe BW Legal are really doing anything wrong, so they can't uphold my complaint" etc etc

Do I now wait and see if BW Legal contact me again to pursue this, or just hope they've written it off after this time?

Something to note is that I have now moved house and I don't know whether to inform BW of my new address or not?!

Any advice appreciated- thank you

Posted by: ostell Wed, 28 Jun 2017 - 14:27
Post #1295917

Yes, tell them your new address so that they don't issue a claim against you old address and therefore get judgment by default.

Posted by: Dave65 Wed, 28 Jun 2017 - 14:54
Post #1295925

Going back did you get any replies from the Council on Permissions for the signs and ANPR cameras?

Posted by: Gan Wed, 28 Jun 2017 - 14:59
Post #1295928

Say that in the event that they issue a claim to the old address, you will rely on the message to hold them and their client liable for the full costs of a set aside application

That's the standard SRA response

You could ask them to confirm that their investigation showed that BWL provides genuine legal services to their client and that the amounts mentioned in their letters are invoiced and paid

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 28 Jun 2017 - 16:25
Post #1295963

Forgive my ignorance - what is a "set aside application"?

Also - yes I did eventually get a response. The council told me its not their land and to contact a company who privately own said land. They confirmed to me that they had authorised the ANPR cameras etc etc.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 28 Jun 2017 - 18:16
Post #1296002

If you end up with a default judgement, to get the judgement set aside ie removed , you have to pay.

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 29 Jun 2017 - 08:19
Post #1296163

Thanks for confirming nosferatu. Does the below letter sound reasonable then?

Dear BW Legal,

Ref: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Further to our correspondence in 2016 and my subsequent reporting of your practices to the SRA, I write to inform you that I have changed address. The address you have on file is XXXXXXXXXXXXXX and my new address is XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

Please note that in the event that you issue a claim to my previous address, I will rely on this letter to hold you and your client liable for the full costs of a set aside application in the event that you choose to pursue this route.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXXXX

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 29 Jun 2017 - 09:42
Post #1296204

Yes. Simple and straight to the point.

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 29 Jun 2017 - 10:42
Post #1296237

Thank you - will send that today, 1st class with proof of posting smile.gif

Posted by: alexsyl Fri, 30 Jun 2017 - 10:22
Post #1296524

Just to add, I've had an email response from the SRA after I emailed them with a brief query based on what Gan mentioned. Does surprise me to a point but hey ho!

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that we have had sight of correspondence which confirms that BW Legal do act on behalf of legitimate clients in the course of debt recovery for those clients.

Kind regards,

XXXXXXXXXX

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 29 May 2018 - 16:16
Post #1385879

Hello again all,

This had gone rather inactive for some time, however out of the blue I have received the attached template letters from both BW Legal and VCS in the same envelope.

This is the first contact I have had from either of them in nearly 2 years.

The last letter I sent was detailed above - I never received any kind of response to this, have still never received a copy of the original PCN. It's so frustrating and stressful to have this kind of stuff so far down the line when I have not heard from them in so long and was hoping it would be all done and dusted with now.

My initial thought is to send a fairly generic rebuff letter back saying that I have requested the original PCN on multiple occasions and this still has not been forthcoming - is this the correct way to go or is there a better way of dealing with it at this stage?

Any advice appreciated - my brain has turned to mush!

Many thanks

http://s1022.photobucket.com/user/aglxs20/media/Letter%20from%20BW%20May2018%20pt2.jpg.html
http://s1022.photobucket.com/user/aglxs20/media/Letter%20from%20BW%20May2018%20pt1.jpg.html

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 29 May 2018 - 17:04
Post #1385891

Ensure you deny any right to "initial legal costs", as these were a) not detailed b) aren't recoverable and c) not recoverable against the keeper anyways.

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 30 May 2018 - 07:53
Post #1386005

Thanks - don't suppose there is a useful article anywhere that refers to the legal costs and why they are not recoverable, that you could link to please?

I'll get a response drafted up today and post it up here for review before sending.

Appreciate your help

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 30 May 2018 - 08:25
Post #1386016

It's in the cprs for small claims court, just look it up. It's what limits costs in small claims.

Posted by: ostell Wed, 30 May 2018 - 08:26
Post #1386017

Legal costs are limited in the small claims court.

Posted by: Umkomaas Wed, 30 May 2018 - 10:29
Post #1386047

QUOTE
My initial thought is to send a fairly generic rebuff letter back saying that I have requested the original PCN on multiple occasions and this still has not been forthcoming

Drop a SAR-bomb on both of them, asking for all the details that they hold on you - tickets, letters, photos, recorded phone calls, correspondence with third parties in relation to you. It's now free of charge and, under the new GDPR, they are required to respond to you within 1 month.

Layout examples via Google.

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 30 May 2018 - 16:14
Post #1386185

Thanks for your comments and help everyone.

Below is a first draft of my response - any comments or advice appreciated? Hoping to get this posted tomorrow.



Dear BW Legal,

I refer to your letter dated 23rd May 2018, received on 29th May 2018. As per my previous correspondence to you, I continue to deny any debt to Vehicle Control Services (VCS) and/or yourselves (BW Legal).

Note that in my previous correspondence to you on 4th October 2016, I informed you that I had never received the original PCN that VCS claimed to have sent me. Despite me both raising it to your attention and requesting your client to send me a copy on more than one occasion, this has never been forthcoming.

I also refute any liability for the “initial legal costs” you refer to, as these were not originally detailed by your client, and regardless are not recoverable under Section 27 of the CPR.

Seen as you have failed to comply with my previous requests, I am now formally taking this opportunity to make a Subject Access Request (SAR) with yourselves. Please take this instruction as a request for a copy of all information you hold about me, for which I am entitled under Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

This should include details of any addresses, contact details or personal information you hold on me, together with copies of all PCNs, photos, correspondence sent between you and myself, plus any correspondence including telephone calls regarding my case between you and your client, VCS, and copies of any correspondence or telephone calls regarding my case with any other third parties.

Please note, you must comply with my SAR without undue delay and at the latest within one month of receipt. The time limit starts from the day you receive this request (whether the day is a working day or not) and as such, I expect a full and detailed response no later than 1st July 2018.

If you do not respond to this request within one month then I will consider this matter closed and do not expect to hear from you again. I will have no hesitation in referring this matter to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) if you refuse my request, fail to comply within the allocated time period, or persist in contacting me at a later date.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXX


Posted by: Umkomaas Wed, 30 May 2018 - 16:29
Post #1386191

QUOTE
Seen as you have failed to comply with my previous requests

'Seen' should read 'Seeing', but I'd leave the word out altogether as the sentence is much more formal if you just start it 'As you have failed to comply ........'

Are you dropping one on VCS too? Because you can compare the two responses where there could well be cracks between them - then you can exploit these via the ICO. Having the ICO sniffing around them both will hopefully spoil their appetite for litigation in your case.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 30 May 2018 - 17:35
Post #1386202

Head it up Subject Access Request - pass to your Data Manager/Data Controller.

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 31 May 2018 - 08:02
Post #1386313

Thanks both, yes will send one to VCS too minus the first couple of paragraphs.

Will make those amendments this morning and get them sent off - first class with POP smile.gif

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 31 May 2018 - 08:55
Post #1386335

QUOTE (alexsyl @ Wed, 30 May 2018 - 17:14) *
... General Data Protection RegulationS (GDPR).

Sorry for minor correction.

Posted by: whjohnson Thu, 31 May 2018 - 10:56
Post #1386362

"Seen as you have failed to comply with my previous requests" would read better if you replaced with -

"Since you have seen fit to ignore my previous requests for information............"

Posted by: alexsyl Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 08:09
Post #1394659

So yesterday I received the attached letter in the post. Just a generic letter from BW with the "we've still not heard from you and if we don't then county court proceedings etc".

This makes no reference to my previous response, include a SAR, of 4 weeks ago.

So, do I either ignore it until their one month SAR deadline is up and then report them to the ICO, or do I respond with a copy of my letter from last month saying that I have tried to get in touch with them? I have a copy of proof of posting from last time just in case.

Any advice appreciated.

Many thanks

http://s1022.photobucket.com/user/aglxs20/media/Letter%20from%20BW%2025062018.jpg.html

Posted by: ostell Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 08:33
Post #1394668

Ask them why they have not acknowledged nor responded to you letter and GDPR request of the xxx May. Again 1st class and Certificate of posting.

Posted by: alexsyl Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 09:59
Post #1394697

Does something like this seem suitable?


Dear BW Legal,

I refer to your letter dated 25th June 2018.

I am extremely disappointed and frustrated at your lack of acknowledgement or response to my letter of 31st May 2018, clearly stating my position and making a formal Subject Access Request with yourselves. A copy of this letter is enclosed for your reference.

My position has not changed and I demand to know why my Subject Access Request has not been acknowledged or dealt with. As it stands, you will be in breach of the General Data Protection Regulation 2016 (GDPR) and I will be reporting you to the ICO should I not receive a satisfactory response.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am willing to extend the date on my Subject Access Request by two weeks, and as such I expect a full and complete response no later than the 15th July.

Any other correspondence from yourselves before then, that does not respond in full to my request, will be deemed as harrassment and will be reported as such.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXXXX


Posted by: Jlc Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 10:56
Post #1394714

Drop 2016?

Why are you willing to give an 'extension'?

Posted by: alexsyl Fri, 29 Jun 2018 - 11:17
Post #1394723

The 2 week extension has been given on advice from a conversation I had with the ICO this morning. They have advised that in most circumstances you should be reasonable with the company and give them a "second chance" to respond, effectively. If you haven't done this first then they are less likely to take your complaint favourably

Posted by: publicenemyno1 Sat, 30 Jun 2018 - 07:56
Post #1394952

This sort of thing frustrates me. Is it 30 days or actually 44, then?

No doubt BW Legal would not give you an extra 2 weeks if you owed them money legitimately!

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 2 Jul 2018 - 07:44
Post #1395296

Yeah I know, its tedious. To be fair though the person at the ICO was helpful, its 30 days in the first instance and then your'e supposed to play nice - I've ended up only giving them 10 days which I decided was more than reasonable, so if I don't hear from them by then, complaint it is

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 07:51
Post #1398115

No responses from either VCS or BWL following my SARs - even with the 10 extra days they were given.

Will be raising formal complaints to the ICO this morning.

Do you think it is worthwhile sending them both letters to say something to this effect? OR just let the ICO deal with it now?

Many thanks

Posted by: Redivi Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 08:49
Post #1398130

Leave it to the ICO

I suspect that the response will be along the lines that VCS and BWL are entitled to your information because they believe you owe a payment

The companies apologise for the delay but are dealing with a vastly increased number of SAR enquiries since GDPR eliminated the £10 charge


Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:20
Post #1398173

Yeah, the ICO actually said since I made my last post that I don't need to contact the companies again to tell them.

I'm also expecting that kind of response - and aware it won't be the fastest because of the influx of requests since 25th May, however I still want a copy of everything they hold on me, which I am still entitled to. Example, I have still never received a copy of the original PCN from 3 years, despite asking for it on more than 4 occasions!

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 10:40
Post #1398187

I would stop that response before you get it
You point out that while you expect the company may be dealing iwth an elevated number of enquiries since the GDPR was put in place, this would have been somethign they must have anticpated, as a part of their expected business dealing with personal data, and they had 2 years to put processes in place to deal with their legal obligations. If they do indeed claim a huge increase, you require the ICO to verify these claims, and then to investigate the operators failures to implement suitable processes to deal with this ENTIRELY forseeable consequence.

Posted by: Redivi Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 11:30
Post #1398209

Nice one

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 11:51
Post #1398218

As my day job is auditor in IT, youd be surprised how often I get responses such as the above, and learn how to head off at the pass wink.gif

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 08:50
Post #1403562

Hello again.

So over the weekend I received the attached letter from BWL again, headed up "Letter of Claim".

They have still not responded to my Subject Access Request (complaint has already been made to the ICO who are investigating but as yet no response).

Not sure if I send another rebuke letter to BWL using the ICO as leverage again - or is this all just proof that they don't actually read any letters sent to them and just send tree-based harassment to everyone and its dog? Or do I just speak to the ICO again and push for an update on my complaint?

How do I play this? Starting to feel a bit out of my depth so any pointers appreciated?

Many thanks

http://s1022.photobucket.com/user/aglxs20/media/Letter%20from%20BW%2024072018.jpg.html

Posted by: ostell Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 09:10
Post #1403566

You repeat again that you are still waiting for the SAR, you require all the documents that they intend to use in court in order to narrow the issues between you, as expected by the courts. You also want an explanation of how the £54 initial legal costs on page 1, which are not allowed by the small claims court, changes to £54 debt recovery costs in the second page.

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 09:46
Post #1403577

Thanks Ostell, will draft up a response shortly.

Is it worth me speaking to the ICO in the meantime and trying to get a follow up on my complaint, do you think?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 09:54
Post #1403581

Not sure you need to be told to do that - chasing up a complaint is fairly normal, especially with the ICO!

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 10:01
Post #1403584

No worries, first foray into dealing with them so not sure what to expect from them!

Will draft up a letter response to BWL shortly and post here for critique. Cheers

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 11:31
Post #1403612

First draft below, any advice or critique appreciated?

Many thanks


I refer to your letter dated 24th July 2018.

Once again, I am left unsatisfied and frustrated at your lack of responses to my letters of 31st May and 29th June 2018, that have clearly stated my denial of any debt to yourselves and/or your client, Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS).

I also note your lack of any acknowledgement to my formal Subject Access Request (SAR) with yourselves; this is now the third time I have had to contact you regarding this. As you have failed to respond within one month of my initial request, a formal complaint in relation to your conduct has since been lodged with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) as you are now in contravention of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In addition, I demand a full explanation of how the £54 of “initial legal costs” as detailed on page 1 of your letter, which as you know are not permitted by the small claims court, changes to £54 of “debt recovery costs” on the second page?

Further to the points detailed above, I also require all the documents that you intend to use in court sent to me within 10 days of the date of this letter, in order for me to review in full and to narrow any issues, as expected by the courts.

I therefore await your full and complete response by 9th August 2018.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXX

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 09:17
Post #1403865

Hi again, sorry to ask but wondering if anyone can sanity check the above letter draft before I post?

Feeling slightly out of my depth and you guys are all much better versed than I am!

Posted by: ostell Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 09:35
Post #1403877

Send it

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 09:50
Post #1403887

Looks OK to me

Do NOT add the heading "Without Prejudice"

If BWL issues a claim, you want to be able to show that letter to the Court

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 14:33
Post #1403966

Thanks - I tend not to add that heading anyway, just in case.

Will send this afternoon and see what comes back.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 14:01
Post #1404224

Only add that heading if you know wht it does smile.gif

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 14:02
Post #1404225

On a side note - what am I to BWL, just out of interest?

Am I their customer? Client? Or basically nothing?

Posted by: Umkomaas Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 19:44
Post #1404288

QUOTE (alexsyl @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 15:02) *
On a side note - what am I to BWL, just out of interest?

Am I their customer? Client? Or basically nothing?

You're their prey.

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 07:48
Post #1404378

That's true!

I was thinking more if I was put something in a letter - along the lines of "the way you treat your customers is disgusting" - but not actually that - wondering what I would officially be classed as to BWL.

Posted by: Dave65 Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 10:02
Post #1404410

You must remember they only want your money, these people (or kretins) involved in Private Parking care not one zitch about anyone or any such customer service.

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 09:22
Post #1418222

Hello,

So I finally got a response from BWL on my SAR.

Tons of information is missing including what data they hold and how they obtained the data. All they have sent me is copied of letters they've sent, and what responses I have sent them.

How do I best proceed? Do I write back to BWL to tell them as such and to do it properly, or do I leave it with the ICO to take further?

Many thanks

Posted by: Redivi Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 10:14
Post #1418247

Dear Sir

Ref ****

I have received your response to my Subject Access Request

It is woefully inadequate and you have obviously failed to include all the information you hold about me
You have even failed to include the request from your client to contact me

As this was the third time I had requested the information I will not accept any further delays
If I have not received every record by 27th September 4 pm, I will immediately report BWLegal to the Information Commissioners Office

Yours Faithfully

PS : I am also still waiting for an explanation of your £54 charge and why your client believes it to be exempt from CPR 27.14

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 12:08
Post #1418292

Would a complaint to the SRA also be in order?

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 13:01
Post #1418312

Thanks - will send that letter off this afternoon.

I did already complain to the SRA about their conduct last year, however with the new developments in BWL's inability to respond to an access request has tempted me to do it again!

Posted by: alexsyl Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 12:13
Post #1433292

Little update...

I still don't have a response to my SAR from BWL (still under investigation by the ICO) but I have over the weekend finally received an SAR response from VCS.

This response from VCS is surprisingly fairly comprehensive (despite the fact that they originally sent it to an address I haven't lived at in 2.5 years but whatever), and includes a copy of the original PCN that I never received.

So where do I now go from here - part of my original arguments were that the original PCN was never received, am I best off posting a copy of that on here to see if its compliant with everything, or is there a know next best steps after this stage?

Thanks in advance

Posted by: kommando Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 12:27
Post #1433295

Post the NTK redacted but with the dates on, there being a copy available does not change the fact you never got it but at least it can be seen if it was POFA 2012 compliant or not in the first place.

They will have posted it out using a junk mail provider, so not 1st or 2nd class and they will also have no proof of posting from the post office, so your witness statement that the NTK was never received still stands unchallenged.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 12:46
Post #1433300

VCS have neveer been POFA compliant, to my knowledge. Certainly not a few years ago

Re them sending it to the wrong address - thats ANOTHER DPA2018 violation!

You could respond, asking them whether they will self-report their violaiton of the DPA (knowingly using an incorrect address, faliing to maintain proper records) or do you want to do it for them?

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 16:03
Post #1433779

Redacted copy of the original PCN below.

Would be keen to get some feedback on this so I know my next steps...

Many thanks

https://imageshack.com/i/pmXfOSqZj

Posted by: ostell Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 18:29
Post #1433826

There are so many POFA errors on that PCN, unless it is on the back.

No 9 (2) (e)
No 9 (2) (f)
No 9 (2) (a) period of parking. Moving in front of cameras, by definition, is not parking.
No 9 (2) (i) date the notice is sent.
Failed 9 (4) (a) failed to deliver within the 14 day relevant period. Issued on day 13, 9 (6) assumes 2 working days for delivery so this takes delivery to day 15.

Is that enough for your defence?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 08:56
Post #1433941

I cant see those attachments - work blocked

However, just ask - does it actually state they will hold the Keeper liable? they dont usually, they on later PCNs state they will assume you were the driver and hold you liable that way.

So you dont even have to say they failed to comply with POFA, they instead failed to use it all, AND they failed to comply.

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 10:44
Post #1433981

@ ostell - thanks very much, will draft a letter and post it up here shortly.

@ nosferatu - this is what it says:

"The terms and conditions to which the driver agrees to be contractually bound upon entering the site are clearly placed at the entrance to the car park and in prominent places throughout. Your details were either obtained from the DVLA as the RK/Owner 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. If you believe your data has been used or obtained inappropriately then you may contact the ICO or DVLA to raise your concerns. Photographic evidence and data is held on file to support the claim in accordance with the DPA1998. The data is used for the sole purpose of pursuing settlement on this PCN".

"If you were not the driver, please complete and return the relevant section giving the drivers full name and serviceable address in order that we can redirect this PCN accordingly and please also pass this notice onto the driver. If the vehicle was on hire at the date of the contravention or had been sold prior to the date of contravention, please provide relevant details by completing the relevant section and providing relevant supporting evidence. Should the RK either provide an unserviceable name and address of the driver or the named driver denies they were the driver, we may pursue the RK for any PCN amount that remains outstanding on the assumption they were the driver"

so - with my limited knowledge, this reads as a "yes, we hold the RK liable"...?

Posted by: ostell Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 10:51
Post #1433982

Yes they are trying hold the RK liable BUT they have failed to conform to the requirements of POFA to be able to do so so they can only claim against the unknown driver, who you are not obliged to identify.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 13:14
Post #1434022

"Should the RK either provide an unserviceable name and address of the driver or the named driver denies they were the driver, we may pursue the RK for any PCN amount that remains outstanding on the assumption they were the driver""


What part of that suggests theyre using POFA? NOTHING!
POFA does not need any assumptions as to who the driver was.It just MAKES the keeper liable by virtue of being the keeper. Nothing more

This tells you they are NOT using POFA to hold you liable, but a mere assumption you are the driver. Well, that means theyre not using POFA, AND theyre not compliant with POFA (2 different points) , AND their assumpotion is GARBAGE and courts have told them this in the past.

Posted by: alexsyl Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 16:34
Post #1434438

Draft of my response below - any feedback/comments please?

Thanks for the help


I refer to your recent, albeit delayed, response to my Subject Access Request (SAR).

I am incredibly disappointed to find that this had been sent to the incorrect address on two separate occasions. I would therefore now be interested to know whether you will be self-reporting your violation of the GDPR 2018 to the ICO, both for knowingly using an incorrect address and failing to maintain proper records, or if you would like me to do it on your behalf? As you will be aware, I already have an existing complaint about your conduct with them, and I am only happy to escalate this further if needs be.

However, as part of this SAR, I have finally received a copy of the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN), which I had requested from you on numerous occasions before, so I have now finally had a chance to review this properly.

On this PCN, you state that “we may pursue the registered keeper for any PCN amount that remains outstanding on the assumption that they were the driver". This indicates that you do not follow the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and are basing this entire contravention on a mere assumption that the registered keeper was the driver at the time. Your assumptions are woefully inadequate, and you know as well as I do that your company has been told this by the Courts in the past.

To note, even if your PCN did make reference to the fact that you rely on POFA, it would fail on a number of points, including No 9 (2) (a), No 9 (2) (e), No 9 (2) (f), No 9 (2) (i), and No 9 (4) (a) (which also would reference No 9 (6)).

For a business like yourselves, I have little doubt that an investigation by the ICO is likely to cause more damage to you both financially and reputationally, than the cost of an alleged parking contravention, and as such, I am willing to retract my complaint and ICO investigation if you confirm that this fine has been cancelled.

I would therefore be grateful if you can get back to me at your earliest convenience to confirm that this PCN has been cancelled and that no monies are due. I would also request that you instruct BW Legal to desist from contacting me again in the future, unless it is to confirm that they will not attempt to communicate with me going forwards. Failure to do this will of course result in an escalation of my complaint as detailed above.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXXX

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 21:38
Post #1434538

All good until the last two paragraphs which are an unnecessary climb down and show weakness.

Posted by: alexsyl Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 10:25
Post #1434601

Thanks - so if I remove the last 2 paragraphs and insert the following, would this read better?

I have little doubt that an investigation by the ICO is likely to cause more damage to you both financially and reputationally, than the cost of an alleged parking contravention. I would therefore be grateful if you can get back to me at your earliest convenience to confirm that this PCN has been cancelled and that no monies are due. I would also request that you instruct BW Legal to desist from contacting me again in the future, unless it is to confirm that they will not attempt to communicate with me going forwards.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXXX

Posted by: ostell Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 11:01
Post #1434608

The use of the word "grateful" grates a little with parking companies.

I would therefore be grateful demand if you can get back to me at your earliest convenience within 7 days.

Posted by: Dave65 Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:17
Post #1434632

Agree no "grateful" to these cretins.

Posted by: alexsyl Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:19
Post #1434634

Many Thanks - amended accordingly and will post off today.

Posted by: Dave65 Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:25
Post #1434637

1st class with proof of postage from PO free.

Posted by: alexsyl Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:35
Post #1434639

Always smile.gif

Posted by: alexsyl Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 16:37
Post #1434708

So I've got home from work tonight to find this letter from BWL. Is this basically going to be a "I don't have to entertain you by phone so Bog off and communicate with me in writing" response?

Thanks in advance

http://s1022.photobucket.com/user/aglxs20/media/1367729626.png.html

Posted by: ostell Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 17:32
Post #1434720

You've got the idea.

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 18:44
Post #1434737

Dear Bilal

Ref ****

I have received your letter dated **** requesting a telephone call
That will not happen

Your client's actions regarding this matter are already the subject of an investigation by the Information Commissioners Office
I strongly suggest that you seek its instructions before you contact me again

For the avoidance of doubt, I deny any debt to Vehicle Control Services and regard these continuing demands as harassment
I will not reply to any further correspondence
Any telephone calls will be immediately disconnected and reported as malicious communications

In the meanwhile, I will pass a copy of your letter to the ICO as evidence of your client's continued misbehaviour

Yours Sincerely






Posted by: alexsyl Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 11:56
Post #1434847

Thanks for the replies, I've actually received another letter from BWL this morning, copy below.

I didn't realise they were entitled to withhold some of the info they hold on me, or is this BS to try and make me go away?

Any advice appreciated...

Many thanks

http://s1022.photobucket.com/user/aglxs20/media/1250644956.png.html

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 07:45
Post #1435191

Yes, that is correct - anything that is ACTUALLY legally privileged is just that, private and exempt.

Posted by: alexsyl Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 11:21
Post #1435539

Ah ok. I had assumed that if I asked for it they would have still been obliged to provide it - especially if it was something like the original PCN for example.

Do I therefore ignore this letter and just respond with Redivi's letter above saying I wont entertain a phone call, and assume that further correspondence will be back with VCS?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 11:22
Post #1435544

the original PCN cannot possibly be legally privilieged, by definition

Only communications between the PPC and their sols would be.

Send exactly the letter Redivi penned. No need to comment on the SAR letter.

Posted by: alexsyl Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 15:43
Post #1435950

Thank you. Sending that today.

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