PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Liverpool JLA Letter of Claim received
webster1
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:58
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,099



Hi, I was wondering if anyone can assist. I've had advice from the facebook Fight Your Private Parking Invoice Page but now I've received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal threatening to take me to the County Court for an alleged 'parking offence' stopping in a prohibited zone at JLA.
I've responded to all VCS letters, this has now been passed to BW Legal who are saying pay £160 to avoid us taking you to Court. Advice all the way has been no way will this get to Court, but here I am being threatened with County Court.
Any advice/assistance would be greatly appreciated. As you can imagine I'm worried about this and thinking should payment have been made when the first letter came through the door with the £60 fine.
Thanking you in advance!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
24 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
freddy1
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 01:40
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,706
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



JL AIRPORT ?

if BW take you to court it will be a first for this site , and the court will be full
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 07:32
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,183
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Theres a fighting fun set up for these airport tickets.
Bylaws apply, VCS know this, the airport know this, but the parasites are more profitable to them than the bylaws.

Itll not make court. BW Legal dont have authority to issue papers that we are aware of.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 08:45
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,914
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Until an actual claim arrives there's not a lot you can do. Threats are quite common, even with the least litigious PPC's.

Although, one day they may start a flurry - who knows...


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 09:09
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (webster1 @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:58) *
Hi, I was wondering if anyone can assist. I've had advice from the facebook Fight Your Private Parking Invoice Page but now I've received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal threatening to take me to the County Court for an alleged 'parking offence' stopping in a prohibited zone at JLA.


Would you upload the 'Letter of Claim' from BW so that we can understand whether it needs a reply. We can then advise further. As I said in my response to your PM some more information is also needed.

You say above that it was a 'parking' offence. any defence should one be necessary (and take heart since if it's a stopping offence none have yet come to court as far as is known),would be somewhat different to that needed for an alleged 'stopping' offence. Would you upload the original charge notice suitably redacted so that it doesn't contain any identifying details, (ref no, car reg, your name address ...etc).

This post has been edited by hexaflexagon: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 09:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 10:05
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,513
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



If the letter is headed ‘Letter of Claim’, as opposed to ‘Letter Before Claim’, then I think they are playing with words to disguise its real status.

If it is headed ‘Letter Before Claim’, the BWL are required to provide you with a plethora of information, as per the new Pre-action Protocol’ (PaP) - read this link so you know what you should have received with a formal LBC.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure...debt-claims.pdf

When we see a scan of the letter, we can advise on what action, if any, you should take.

When did the ‘stopping contravention’ take place?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:07
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,183
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Even i it does not say "letter before claim", if there is a threat to isssue proceedings without further notice, you are entitled to class it as a letter before claim, and accordingly it MUST comply with the new PAP for debt claims.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobthesod
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:34
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,755



Webster

Just follow the advice of the guys on here

Lynnzer, Gan, hcanderson,Schoolrunmum.nosterferum DancingDad are among the ones who write a lot of sense

As has been said the court would be full

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:47
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,914
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:07) *
Even i it does not say "letter before claim", if there is a threat to isssue proceedings without further notice, you are entitled to class it as a letter before claim, and accordingly it MUST comply with the new PAP for debt claims.

I like that, I would treat the threat as 'real' and respond to them to request the necessary Pre-Action Protocol information to narrow the dispute. Read here.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spudandros
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 12:42
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,244



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:47) *
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:07) *
Even i it does not say "letter before claim", if there is a threat to isssue proceedings without further notice, you are entitled to class it as a letter before claim, and accordingly it MUST comply with the new PAP for debt claims.

I like that, I would treat the threat as 'real' and respond to them to request the necessary Pre-Action Protocol information to narrow the dispute. Read here.


I'm on that Facebook page and have seen this post. It appears they have sent the full banana. It includes the Annexe 1 information and reply forms so seems to be compliant with new PAP. The OP has kept up a dialogue with VCS pointing out bylaws apply and no keeper liability. They responded with the usual Elliott vs Loake guff and now the LoC. The LoC also says if payment or a response is not received, they are instructed to issue CC claim without further reference. Maybe the OP should upload copies with his details redacted.

This post has been edited by Spudandros: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 12:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 13:38
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



..and of course we still need to know whether we're discussing a parking or stopping offence....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 14:05
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,513
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



@OP - can you confirm that it was specifically LJLA and not the nearby Business Park where stopping cases have pursued through the court. Peel Holdings own both LJLA and the BP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 17:27
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 14:05) *
@OP - can you confirm that it was specifically LJLA and not the nearby Business Park where stopping cases have pursued through the court. Peel Holdings own both LJLA and the BP.


I've just re-read post #1 and it does appear it is indeed LJLA and that it's a stopping offence although the words "parking offence" are also used.
@webster. Please upload the charge notice and the BW legal letter. Redacted of course.

This post has been edited by hexaflexagon: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 17:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
webster1
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 21:48
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,099



Hi all, thanks for your responses. I'm in the process of scanning the documents and I may have to post the letter of Claim tomorrow as I've left it at work! I'll attempt from the pictures I took on my mobile but they may not be too clear! I just wanted to respond as didn't want people to think I've posted and then just ignoring you all!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
webster1
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 22:14
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,099



Umkomaas - stopping offence occurred on the 17th March 2017, also it was LJLA that the alleged offence took place. NTK states Stopping in a Zone where Stopping is Prohibited, and refers to the 'period of parking'.
I'm just trying to fathom out how to upload documents!! I'm not very savvy about what to do?!?! I'll sort asap, but may be after work tomorrow when I can just get them all posted up at the same time! thanks again
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 09:50
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,677
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



How to post pictures:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autoco...ticle&id=16

There's a massive popcorn factory in Lark Lane with hundreds of staff on standby waiting to swing into action and make a killing when the first actual VCS court claim happens in respect of JL Airport!


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 11:18
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,513
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



I wonder if this is the start of a new BWL/SRS strategy of pushing people up to the wire, but never letting one case be actually defended in court - following the current CEL model? Just read a similar approach by BWL/VCS in Scotland!

Counterclaiming could be the way forward if this is to be the new modus op for LJLA (and elsewhere).

This post has been edited by Umkomaas: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 11:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 13:24
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 11:18) *
I wonder if this is the start of a new BWL/SRS strategy of pushing people up to the wire, but never letting one case be actually defended in court - following the current CEL model? Just read a similar approach by BWL/VCS in Scotland!

Counterclaiming could be the way forward if this is to be the new modus op for LJLA (and elsewhere).


I was having a similar thought.
Is it possible to counterclaim before a court action is commenced by VCS and what would be the basis of the counterclaim?
Presumably any legal action made prior to an actual court action by VCS would have to be a completerly separate and independent claim in its own right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 13:43
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,183
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



It wouldnt be a counterclaim. It would be a claim
Harassment and DPA breach are the best ones.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Fri, 17 Nov 2017 - 10:20
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



@Webster
Have you worked out yet how to upload those documents. It's particularly important that you upload the last letter and the others stuff that spudandros mentioned so that we can comment.

If it is indeed a letter before action it is in your own interests to acknowledge it just in case this matter does indeed see the light of day in court. It's extremely unlikely but if it should happen then you don't want to give the judge any reason to find you have been unreasonable, and ignoring solicitors letters like this risks that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

24 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 20th February 2018 - 17:55
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.