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  « < 17 18 19 20 21 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (360 - 379)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Spudandros
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:55
Post #361


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,244



QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 20:49) *
QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17) *
This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.


I of course respect your opinion on these matters. Are you saying that none of these stopping cases at LJLA will ever be succesful or mainly those that are heard in Liverpool or St. Helens?
If the former then that is a bleak prospect and VCS will of course be encouraged to start on the big backlog they've presumably got.

Must admit it's not clear to me whether this relates to the Business Park which I understand to be outside the airport or to the private Speke Hall Drive dual carriageway private road to the terminal area. What's your understanding and would it make a difference anyway whether it's the business park or airport?



Thinking about this, I suspect VCS will treat the first case as an important test case and wheel out the big legal guns.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
webster1
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 21:18
Post #362


Member


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



QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17) *
This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.

The case would be heard in either Liverpool or St Helens, two of the most PPC-friendly courts in the country.

VCS already have the VCS v Crutchley judgment, an appeal hearing before HHJ Wood QC, to create a persuasive precedent.

If this OP goes to court to try and defend, she'll most likely be eviscerated, handing VCS another judgment to wave in front of the next Judge.

Just say no.


Hi, I just want to say that I've not actually had anyone say not to pursue this. I really wouldn't have wasted anyone's time if I had. I would just like to ask though is it always going to be that VCS / BW Legal will continue to get away with this (I know that no one person can answer, I'm just thinking out load about it). I'm fine with someone else going to Court, I just kind of wish that I was advised earlier!!
I do hope that this is challenged as it clearly needs to be, but if this should not be me then I will take this advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 21:38
Post #363


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,703
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



In would continue with your defence , I still think that this is a big bluff game

you can always pay just before the court date


PS , St Helens may be your local court , but is not the wording "court of YOUR choice "
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:17
Post #364


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 196
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 21:18) *
QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17) *
This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.

The case would be heard in either Liverpool or St Helens, two of the most PPC-friendly courts in the country.

VCS already have the VCS v Crutchley judgment, an appeal hearing before HHJ Wood QC, to create a persuasive precedent.

If this OP goes to court to try and defend, she'll most likely be eviscerated, handing VCS another judgment to wave in front of the next Judge.

Just say no.


Hi, I just want to say that I've not actually had anyone say not to pursue this. I really wouldn't have wasted anyone's time if I had. I would just like to ask though is it always going to be that VCS / BW Legal will continue to get away with this (I know that no one person can answer, I'm just thinking out load about it). I'm fine with someone else going to Court, I just kind of wish that I was advised earlier!!
I do hope that this is challenged as it clearly needs to be, but if this should not be me then I will take this advice.


Woods is the designated civil judge for Cheshire and Lpool. He leads the other judges for that entire circuit but his word is not binding law.

I still dont know where the driver allegedly stopped, and you still have not put all the docs in post no.1 as asked.

Has an AoS been filed? What is the date for filing a defence.

Have any photos been provided?

In the dark here.

This post has been edited by 4101: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whjohnson
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:39
Post #365


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,738



Things are beginning to look very shaky.
If I were one of those with one of these claims hanging over me, I'd just continue to ignore and live with the inevitable CCJ.

Just to spite the bastards. I just couldn't live with giving them the satisfaction.

Your mileages may differ however.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:52
Post #366


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,703
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:39) *
Things are beginning to look very shaky.
If I were one of those with one of these claims hanging over me, I'd just continue to ignore and live with the inevitable CCJ.

Just to spite the bastards. I just couldn't live with giving them the satisfaction.

Your mileages may differ however.



I posted this a few days ago


can I now add , things do not add up here , BW have not added realistic court / and solisitors costs in this case , a win in court would be a financial loss , so I am sticking by the following

"after reading thru the 3 cases on here , I think:

BW legal final swan song before getting out of private parking

there have been thousands upon thousands of VCS/JLA cases over the last 6 yrs (and more) , so if BW send out 10,000 claims @£25 a time , a lot of people will have moved house of the others 60-70% will pay up and 30% will fight


BW get 5,000 defaults (not bad for £25) , and get the full inflated sum from 60-70% of all that get papers and they simply drop the rest

this could be the biggest case of defaults seen so far , causing financial and personal grief on thousands of people


and BW can simply send another mail shot the next week , and the week after "

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
webster1
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:10
Post #367


Member


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



QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:39) *
Things are beginning to look very shaky.
If I were one of those with one of these claims hanging over me, I'd just continue to ignore and live with the inevitable CCJ.

Just to spite the bastards. I just couldn't live with giving them the satisfaction.

Your mileages may differ however.


I can't have a CCJ, I have too many years left on my mortgage unfortunately!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:13
Post #368


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,703
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



deleted

This post has been edited by freddy1: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whjohnson
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:16
Post #369


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,738



I cannot see how defaulting on a pesky scam ticket claim can undermine your mortgage - especially if you are keeping up the regular payments.
They can't just suddenly withdraw it can they? Surely such an action would not be in the financial interest of the lender?

Maybe different if you don't yet have a mortgage and are in the process of applying for one, but a mortgage with a long and solid repayment history behind it must be a wholly different beast?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:20
Post #370


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,703
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



they have set the fugue out , not viably economical to push thru court , if they win , then pay up with 28 days , but give the buggers a fight

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
webster1
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:25
Post #371


Member


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



QUOTE (4101 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:17) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 21:18) *
QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17) *
This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.

The case would be heard in either Liverpool or St Helens, two of the most PPC-friendly courts in the country.

VCS already have the VCS v Crutchley judgment, an appeal hearing before HHJ Wood QC, to create a persuasive precedent.

If this OP goes to court to try and defend, she'll most likely be eviscerated, handing VCS another judgment to wave in front of the next Judge.

Just say no.


Hi, I just want to say that I've not actually had anyone say not to pursue this. I really wouldn't have wasted anyone's time if I had. I would just like to ask though is it always going to be that VCS / BW Legal will continue to get away with this (I know that no one person can answer, I'm just thinking out load about it). I'm fine with someone else going to Court, I just kind of wish that I was advised earlier!!
I do hope that this is challenged as it clearly needs to be, but if this should not be me then I will take this advice.


Woods is the designated civil judge for Cheshire and Lpool. He leads the other judges for that entire circuit but his word is not binding law.

I still dont know where the driver allegedly stopped, and you still have not put all the docs in post no.1 as asked.

Has an AoS been filed? What is the date for filing a defence.

Have any photos been provided?

In the dark here.


The alleged offence took place just off the roundabout on the way out of the airport.

I will do my best to get the documents on post 1 tomorrow.

I have sent an AoS which was sent two weeks ago tomorrow (it would have been received by the Court on 02.02.18)

What photo's do you mean? The photo's are on the NTK. I have also requested others that VCS say that they have along with CCTV footage, I have not yet has a reply.


QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:16) *
I cannot see how defaulting on a pesky scam ticket claim can undermine your mortgage - especially if you are keeping up the regular payments.
They can't just suddenly withdraw it can they? Surely such an action would not be in the financial interest of the lender?

Maybe different if you don't yet have a mortgage and are in the process of applying for one, but a mortgage with a long and solid repayment history behind it must be a wholly different beast?


No it wouldn't be withdrawn but a CCJ would seriously impact on me when I come to remortgage or apply for credit. With a CCJ I'm scuppered!!! Also if they won and I wanted to pay monthly this would also harm my credit rating!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:26
Post #372


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,703
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



any CCTV footage could actually be damaging to there case

scanning back cant see it , did the driver stop to let person out of car or pick passenger up
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:27
Post #373


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 196
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:10) *
QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:39) *
Things are beginning to look very shaky.
If I were one of those with one of these claims hanging over me, I'd just continue to ignore and live with the inevitable CCJ.

Just to spite the bastards. I just couldn't live with giving them the satisfaction.

Your mileages may differ however.


I can't have a CCJ, I have too many years left on my mortgage unfortunately!



I would not pay the £60 extra charge. That is taking the ...........

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:29
Post #374


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,703
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:25) *
QUOTE (4101 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:17) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 21:18) *
QUOTE (bargepole @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:17) *
This case was highlighted to me via the BMPA, and one of the Facebook groups.

My advice, which I believe was passed to the OP, was that some battles are worth fighting, but this isn't one of them. She should negotiate a settlement with VCS and just move on.

The case would be heard in either Liverpool or St Helens, two of the most PPC-friendly courts in the country.

VCS already have the VCS v Crutchley judgment, an appeal hearing before HHJ Wood QC, to create a persuasive precedent.

If this OP goes to court to try and defend, she'll most likely be eviscerated, handing VCS another judgment to wave in front of the next Judge.

Just say no.


Hi, I just want to say that I've not actually had anyone say not to pursue this. I really wouldn't have wasted anyone's time if I had. I would just like to ask though is it always going to be that VCS / BW Legal will continue to get away with this (I know that no one person can answer, I'm just thinking out load about it). I'm fine with someone else going to Court, I just kind of wish that I was advised earlier!!
I do hope that this is challenged as it clearly needs to be, but if this should not be me then I will take this advice.


Woods is the designated civil judge for Cheshire and Lpool. He leads the other judges for that entire circuit but his word is not binding law.

I still dont know where the driver allegedly stopped, and you still have not put all the docs in post no.1 as asked.

Has an AoS been filed? What is the date for filing a defence.

Have any photos been provided?

In the dark here.


The alleged offence took place just off the roundabout on the way out of the airport.

I will do my best to get the documents on post 1 tomorrow.

I have sent an AoS which was sent two weeks ago tomorrow (it would have been received by the Court on 02.02.18)

What photo's do you mean? The photo's are on the NTK. I have also requested others that VCS say that they have along with CCTV footage, I have not yet has a reply.


QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:16) *
I cannot see how defaulting on a pesky scam ticket claim can undermine your mortgage - especially if you are keeping up the regular payments.
They can't just suddenly withdraw it can they? Surely such an action would not be in the financial interest of the lender?

Maybe different if you don't yet have a mortgage and are in the process of applying for one, but a mortgage with a long and solid repayment history behind it must be a wholly different beast?


No it wouldn't be withdrawn but a CCJ would seriously impact on me when I come to remortgage or apply for credit. With a CCJ I'm scuppered!!! Also if they won and I wanted to pay monthly this would also harm my credit rating!


you would not be allowed to pay monthly , but as this is small claims and they have put very minimul costs down , the figure would be approx the same as they want now (extras? £25 court fee?)


QUOTE (4101 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:27) *
QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:10) *
QUOTE (whjohnson @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 22:39) *
Things are beginning to look very shaky.
If I were one of those with one of these claims hanging over me, I'd just continue to ignore and live with the inevitable CCJ.

Just to spite the bastards. I just couldn't live with giving them the satisfaction.

Your mileages may differ however.


I can't have a CCJ, I have too many years left on my mortgage unfortunately!



I would not pay the £60 extra charge. That is taking the ...........


it is going to cost them far more than £60 to fight this
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
webster1
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:49
Post #375


Member


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



QUOTE (freddy1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:26) *
any CCTV footage could actually be damaging to there case

scanning back cant see it , did the driver stop to let person out of car or pick passenger up


post 29 - the attached file. In their correspondence (or maybe it's on the NTK) it states that these are a selection of images that they have and CCTV footage. So I've requested them. Why would CCTV be damaging to them. Driver was picking up a vulnerable passenger.

This post has been edited by webster1: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4101
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 00:01
Post #376


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 196
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,634



I would serve the Part 18 and then decide what to do.

You can always throw in the towel before hearing.

Bargepole will no doubt drop by. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 00:04
Post #377


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,703
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:49) *
QUOTE (freddy1 @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 23:26) *
any CCTV footage could actually be damaging to there case

scanning back cant see it , did the driver stop to let person out of car or pick passenger up


post 29 - the attached file. In their correspondence (or maybe it's on the NTK) it states that these are a selection of images that they have and CCTV footage. So I've requested them. Why would CCTV be damaging to them. Driver was picking up a vulnerable passenger.




because VCS are a PARKING co , they have got your info from the DVLA on pretence of PARKING , and as such written into the IPC code of contract are rules regarding grace periods to read signs


the land is non valid for them to ncontinue , there signage is a joke , etc etc and as this land is bylaws only LJA can bring charges ,

BW are steering away from this and trying to create obfuscation with that claim form

as said above they have set the figure demanded far to low to pay BW to turn up , , this is smoke n mirrors and BW are playing poker

you either pay the £160 now in cash , one off payment or you fight them , if you loose you have 28 days to pay VCS and it will not be a CCJ . however it will cost them £200-300 to see your hand in court .

a bloody nose and a loss may cause BW to stand back on future cases ,

and as stated several times , buy an away day ticket put a pin in a map , dont use st helens if you are not happy

This post has been edited by freddy1: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 00:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 01:20
Post #378


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



What courts are nearby and have had big wins and sympathetic judges at? Wasnt there one on MErseyside a while back where some judge was round up all the PPC cases as he had a bee in his bonnect about the parkco's wasting court time?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 05:38
Post #379


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 1,993
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



You don't get to pick and choose which court your case is heard at.

If the Defendant is a private individual, it will be allocated to their 'home' court, the one that is nearest geographically to their home address, or sometimes the next nearest if the first one has a long waiting list for dates.

Part 18 requests are generally a waste of time in small claims cases, PPCs rarely respond, and once it's allocated to track, Part 18 no longer applies.

Anyone who still thinks this OP should continue with a Defence, should read the Crutchley judgment, linked on post #74 of this thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...chley&st=70


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 10:19
Post #380


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 880
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (bargepole @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 05:38) *
You don't get to pick and choose which court your case is heard at.

If the Defendant is a private individual, it will be allocated to their 'home' court, the one that is nearest geographically to their home address, or sometimes the next nearest if the first one has a long waiting list for dates.

Part 18 requests are generally a waste of time in small claims cases, PPCs rarely respond, and once it's allocated to track, Part 18 no longer applies.

Anyone who still thinks this OP should continue with a Defence, should read the Crutchley judgment, linked on post #74 of this thread: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...chley&st=70


If this is to be defended then it needs to be distinguished from the Crutchley case to stand at least some chance of a different decision.
I see the significant difference as being the following. Do you think there is any merit in these distinguishing points?

A. LJLA is subject to bylaws. The business park isn’t.

B. The airport roads are not clearly delineated as being private as apparently were the business park roads. In fact one of the main reasons that LJLA were not give advertising consent for the original signs was that it was not clear that anyone was entering private land. That is why Liverpool Council required 10m of the approach road to the airport be coloured with blue tarmac as part of the eventual planning consent for the new signs in February 2017 (Paragraph 7)

C. The DfT calculations giving the empirical calculations showing the impossibility of reading the large signs was not submitted. (See para 16 where it says “it appears to be agreed”). Might the outcome have been different had the calculations been presented?

D. There are small repeater signs at LJLA which have the camera symbol and the words ‘Traffic Compliance Cameras’. These signs are placed parallel to the road on a fence which is separated from the carriageway by a footpath, a bicycle path a green verge and a strip of gravel. (It’s not clear whether these are the same as at the business park Paragraph 19). The rest of the words on the sign are much smaller. These are clearly too far away and not facing the traffic and hence not readable at 30 mph on a dual carriageway. There are other even smaller signs on lamp posts but again parallel to the road. Google maps does not show the repeater signs on the business park nor the posted speed limit but it’s reasonable to assume that since the road at the business park is not particularly wide they may be more readable and the speed limit may be different. Speke Hall Drive is a wide dual carriageway unlike the business park which is not a ‘particularly wide road’ (Last sentence paragraph 32)

Paragraphs from the Crutchley judgment

7. I shall now deal with the circumstances in which this parking charge came to be levied. The International Business Park in Speke is a large landscaped area providing access roads to various industrial and office units in an enclosed park adjacent to the river Mersey. It is privately owned by Peel Holdings. It is clearly demarcated as a private business park

16. There is an indication that traffic compliance cameras are in use. It appears to be agreed that this sign is sufficiently clear to be readable by motorists as they pass.

19. As well as the larger sign, it is agreed that on fixed lamp posts at various points on the site were smaller signs containing much more information. However these smaller signs would not be readable to a driver without stopping and getting out of his car to examine the fine print, which would amount to a technical infringement of the stipulation in any event. It is said that there may have been over 80 such notices in place. I do not know how many of the large signs were positioned in the park.

32. It is also helpful to consider the nature of the rights and interests which the parties are maintaining by this arrangement. The Claimant has a clear and legitimate interest, in my judgment, in maintaining the free flow of traffic through the business park. Whilst there would always be exceptional cases arising from breakdown, severe inclement weather etc, if there were no preventative measures available from the enforcement of terms and conditions, the situation could easily arise where vehicles stopping only for less than a minute could cause congestion and obstruction which would not serve either the landowner, or the businesses who required regular access to their properties. These are not particularly wide roads, and I suspect that vehicles stopped even momentarily would prevent two larger vehicles passing in opposite directions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

24 Pages V  « < 17 18 19 20 21 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 19th February 2018 - 17:28
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.