Another Liverpool John Lennon Airport PCN Options

[Chipper64]

Hi,

My wife has recieved a series of letter, following the issue of a PCN by VCS. The issue is now being dealt with by BW legal. The car is a lease car and it was photographed at the airport dropping someone off. BW Legal have now sent a 'Fianl Notice' letter. Until this point in time, i've received a great deal of help/info off a guy on the facebook page for fighting private invoices, however, he has suggested that you guys will be better placed to help.

Please could you provide any guidnace on how i should now deal with this letter off BW Legal?

btw, I have posted previously about another on-going case with another PPC for a PCN recieved at The Adelhi hotel in Liverpool. Again, this one is still On-going.

I can post copies of any docs necessary to help with any background info that may be needed.

Thanks for any help/info you may be able to provide.

Chipper64

ps
The car is a lease car and during this process, VCS wrote to the lease co and then said that the lease co had provided my wife's name as being that of the driver. We responded to the to them them we too would ask the lease co for proof of how they could suggest such a case.

This post has been edited by Chipper64: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 19:28

[Advertisement]

[nosferatu1001]

Sorry, that wasnt meant to be dismissive - more joking, that if you think them lying is new, youve not read their WS!

[Chipper64]

No problem. No offense taken.

Just want to rid of these rats and cease with the paperwork. I've got a life to live.

[Chipper64]

When you beat VCS, you will be able to reclaim the admin charge from the hire company, subject to provisions in the hire agreement.

Here's a copy of the terms. I think Section 10.1 nails it from a point of view of not being able to reclaim their admin costs.

This post has been edited by Chipper64: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 12:22

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Chipper64]

I think you have been advised to look at the other vcs/jla/BW case , I made a post at #285 , http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...6961&st=280

I've read your post but I'm sorry, it doesn't leave me with a direction to take. Do I need to respond to the BW Legal "Final" Letter?

[ManxRed]

I agree. This is neither a fine, a penalty, nor a contravention.

It's a speculative invoice alleging a sum owed for breaching a contract.

[Chipper64]

Post the PCN, both sides - editing out personal details and PCN number and Vehicle reg.

Did you see the PCN I posted below? Any advice? I've read through some of the Webster post but I'm still unclear as to what I should do next.

[Chipper64]

Well, I might not of read many court claim documents but in the past 12 months I've been fighting 3 PCN's so I do have some experience that I value in this field.

Since VCS are suggesting that the leasing company provided them with the drivers name, I shall be pursuing them through the ICO channels to demand to know why they gave VCS the name of the keeper as the name of the driver at the time of the incident when nothing along those lines have ever been communicated to eiher party..

[ManxRed]

Quite simply, the leasing company wouldn't know who the driver was. Any information they provided that stated who the driver was is purely speculative.

VCS may well be lying. They have a long track record of it.

[cabbyman]

When you beat VCS, you will be able to reclaim the admin charge from the hire company, subject to provisions in the hire agreement.

Here's a copy of the terms. I think Section 10.1 nails it from a point of view of not being able to reclaim their admin costs.

Sec 10.1 specifically says 'fines, penalties or contraventions.' This in none of them and ARVAL are not, therefore, entitled to charge you a fee. Anyway, worry about that later.

Concentrate on winning your case first.

[Chipper64]

When you beat VCS, you will be able to reclaim the admin charge from the hire company, subject to provisions in the hire agreement.

Here's a copy of the terms. I think Section 10.1 nails it from a point of view of not being able to reclaim their admin costs.

Sec 10.1 specifically says 'fines, penalties or contraventions.' This in none of them and ARVAL are not, therefore, entitled to charge you a fee. Anyway, worry about that later.

Concentrate on winning your case first.

So, how would be best to word the letter to the lease company in that respect? something along the lines of "You have charged me for an invoice which is currently being disputed"?

[nosferatu1001]

No, you have chagred me a fee for somehting not covered by your terms and conditions.
As you are fully and completely aware, Private parking notices are merly invoices, and are not fines, penalties or contraventions of any statute law.
I require you to repay this unauthorised amount within 14 days

[Chipper64]

No, you have chagred me a fee for somehting not covered by your terms and conditions.
As you are fully and completely aware, Private parking notices are merly invoices, and are not fines, penalties or contraventions of any statute law.
I require you to repay this unauthorised amount within 14 days

Thanks very much for that. Will follow it up today.

[Umkomaas]

If Arval are a member of the BVRLA (Trade Association), they should be following the procedures outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding agreed between the BVRLA and the BPA on how such speculative invoices from parking companies should be handled.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9b0iavad3aqeh28/B...%20MoU.pdf?dl=0

The BVRLA is an accredited ADR organisation, so if Arval won't play ball, you require them to provide access for you to their industry's ADR facility.

[Chipper64]

If Arval are a member of the BVRLA (Trade Association), they should be following the procedures outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding agreed between the BVRLA and the BPA on how such speculative invoices from parking companies should be handled.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9b0iavad3aqeh28/B...%20MoU.pdf?dl=0

The BVRLA is an accredited ADR organisation, so if Arval won't play ball, you require them to provide access for you to their industry's ADR facility.

This is off the BPA "Vehicle Control Services Ltd are members of the BPA with regard to the parking industry but not members of the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme with regard to parking enforcement and parking charge notices."

[nosferatu1001]

BVRLA

NOT

BPA

They are very, very different organisations.

[Chipper64]

BVRLA

NOT

BPA

They are very, very different organisations.

It turns out Arval are full members of the BVRLA.

[Umkomaas]

If Arval are a member of the BVRLA (Trade Association), they should be following the procedures outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding agreed between the BVRLA and the BPA on how such speculative invoices from parking companies should be handled.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9b0iavad3aqeh28/B...%20MoU.pdf?dl=0

The BVRLA is an accredited ADR organisation, so if Arval won't play ball, you require them to provide access for you to their industry's ADR facility.

This is off the BPA "Vehicle Control Services Ltd are members of the BPA with regard to the parking industry but not members of the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme with regard to parking enforcement and parking charge notices."

It's irrelevant which ATA that VCS are members of. It's Arval who are members of the BVRLA and they (BVRLA) have provided their members (Arval et al) with the process that they are required to follow where any private parking charge is raised against a hirer/lessee. VCS don't come into that part of the equation at all, rather they will be recipients of the output of the BVRLA process.

[Chipper64]

If Arval are a member of the BVRLA (Trade Association), they should be following the procedures outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding agreed between the BVRLA and the BPA on how such speculative invoices from parking companies should be handled.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9b0iavad3aqeh28/B...%20MoU.pdf?dl=0

The BVRLA is an accredited ADR organisation, so if Arval won't play ball, you require them to provide access for you to their industry's ADR facility.

This is off the BPA "Vehicle Control Services Ltd are members of the BPA with regard to the parking industry but not members of the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme with regard to parking enforcement and parking charge notices."

It's irrelevant which ATA that VCS are members of. It's Arval who are members of the BVRLA and they (BVRLA) have provided their members (Arval et al) with the process that they are required to follow where any private parking charge is raised against a hirer/lessee. VCS don't come into that part of the equation at all, rather they will be recipients of the output of the BVRLA process.

Thanks for that. I hope you can understand that this info and the abbreviations can be quite confusing, especially as there are many 'untruths' out there. And I've got another PCN on the go too as well as my own 9-5 job.

[nosferatu1001]

There is confusing and confusing 3 letter BPA with the five letter BVRLA .... you just need to be more careful, and not skim.

[Chipper64]

So, 3 letters going off this weekend:

1 PPC - Reminding them that keeper has no liability nor do they need to name the driver. Also requesting that their next communication be a court claim or end their action.

2, Legal Team - Inform them that Keeper has no liability nor obliged to name the driver. Also informing them of the investigation to the lease company for allegedly providing PPC with driver name. Requesting answers to a list of questions about the details of the PCN and to make their next correspondence include a court claim.

3, Lease Company - Informing them of our concerns about providing a PPC with Driver details when they have never been disclosed and that the ICO will be informed if this is not dealt with correctly (including a refund of the admin fee charged for processing the PCN (Invoice).

Any comments or advice will be greatly appreciated.