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: 75
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
25 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 23:58
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
unicorn47
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 19:20
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 24 May 2015
Member No.: 77,413



I've just read the Byelaws dated 1982, not sure if they are the latest.

Everything was written when it was run by the council.

The Airport currently say the prohibition was clearly detailed on the signage. The only mention in the Byelaws on signage is that of "traffic sign erected and displayed by the council".

Also the max permitted fine for breaching Byelaws is £100.00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:29
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 926
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (unicorn47 @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 19:20) *
I've just read the Byelaws dated 1982, not sure if they are the latest.

Everything was written when it was run by the council.

The Airport currently say the prohibition was clearly detailed on the signage. The only mention in the Byelaws on signage is that of "traffic sign erected and displayed by the council".

Also the max permitted fine for breaching Byelaws is £100.00


Yes the 1982 bylaws arre the latest. They have never been rescinded and have been confirmed by the Government as being IN FORCE.

Almost correct re the original writing. They were originallly drawn up by the then Merseyside County Council in 1962. These were subsequently rescinded in 1982 and re-introduced with many of the same clauses by Merseyside CC. These 1982 bylaws were taken over by Liverpool Council on re-organisation in 1986 when Merseyside Co. Council ceased to exist.

As has been pointed out use of the word prohibition by LJLA gives the game away. You can't prohibit a contract.

Finally note post #200 in This thread. LJLA have been trying to get new bylaws written since 2010 and you can sense the frustration the DfT have with LJLA in the DfT's FoI response to my FoI request.

This post has been edited by hexaflexagon: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 23:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Catz3005
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 20:50
Post #43


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 30 May 2017
Member No.: 92,253



What's going on here? I'm finding it difficult to believe this one. You have received all the PaP info?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 21:27
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,641
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
The Site is privately owned and there is no public right of way.


''No public right of way'' on a publicly-open road leading the way to/from an Airport?

They even say ''the byelaws are arbitrary''... you couldn't make it up!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:10
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 926
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (webster1 @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 18:48) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Mon, 20 Nov 2017 - 17:00) *
Massive popcorn order placed!


...... I would really rather not be the first one with this, with everyone scoffing their popcorn!!! wacko.gif


We promise not to make too much noise.

On a serious note perhaps Lynzzer would respond with some indication of the amount pledged for the first of these to reach court. Some of it may need to be called in.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:17
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 395
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



Lynzzer doesn't seem to have posted for a long time !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:26
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 926
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (Dave65 @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:17) *
Lynzzer doesn't seem to have posted for a long time !


Yes, I was just thinking that myself.....!!

Just spotted this re Lynnzer

We can only hope he's making a good recovery.

This post has been edited by hexaflexagon: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 22:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steofthedale
post Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 00:03
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 2 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,395



Given the date of the alleged infringement (March), I believe that there was no planning approval for the "no stopping" signs at that time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
webster1
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 18:16
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,099



Hi all, so today I've received another Letter Before Claim from VCS. States that " We write regarding the outstanding liability. This matter has now been passed to our Legal Department in order to recover the sum of £160 in respect of a PCN for breaching the Terms and Conditions situate3d at LJLA on 17 March. The jum sought is inclusive of a dert collection charge of £60 in accordance with the T&C of parking.

it goes on to state " Despite our best endeavours to recover payments it has proved unsuccessful and as such we have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings. Should the outstanding balance no be settled by the 28th Dec 2017 we will commence legal proceedings against you without further notice. If we are forced to issue court proceedings to recover the debt, we will seek to claim our court costs and further interest in additional to the outstanding balance. Estimated total £193.

it provides the Annex 1 forms as BW Legal did and the reply form.

Wondering why they have sent it when already passed over to BW Legal and they have already sent me a Letter of Claim. They have also refer to me as Dear Sirs....last time I checked I wasn't a Sir!! What do people think of this?!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 18:28
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,144
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Does this comply with the new pre action protocol fir debt claims?
It can’t because of the 14 days time limit, for example.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
webster1
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 18:44
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,099



QUOTE (Catz3005 @ Thu, 23 Nov 2017 - 20:50) *
What's going on here? I'm finding it difficult to believe this one. You have received all the PaP info?




Yes I appear to have received all the Pap info (well I think so anyway!!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:06
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 926
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (Steofthedale @ Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 00:03) *
Given the date of the alleged infringement (March), I believe that there was no planning approval for the "no stopping" signs at that time.


It's correct that there was no ADVERTISING Consent until May 2017. However past history seems to show that this doesn't seem to carry any weight when it comes to matters contractual - certainly not as far as the courts are concerned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:11
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,661
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE (hexaflexagon @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:06) *
QUOTE (Steofthedale @ Tue, 28 Nov 2017 - 00:03) *
Given the date of the alleged infringement (March), I believe that there was no planning approval for the "no stopping" signs at that time.


It's correct that there was no ADVERTISING Consent until May 2017. However past history seems to show that this doesn't seem to carry any weight when it comes to matters contractual - certainly not as far as the courts are concerned.

Or the Council for that matter.

What’s the point of a law if it can be broken and the enforcing authority can turn a blind eye with no recourse?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:21
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,641
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:16) *
Hi all, so today I've received another Letter Before Claim from VCS. States that " We write regarding the outstanding liability. This matter has now been passed to our Legal Department in order to recover the sum of £160 in respect of a PCN for breaching the Terms and Conditions situate3d at LJLA on 17 March. The jum sought is inclusive of a dert collection charge of £60 in accordance with the T&C of parking.

it goes on to state " Despite our best endeavours to recover payments it has proved unsuccessful and as such we have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings. Should the outstanding balance no be settled by the 28th Dec 2017 we will commence legal proceedings against you without further notice. If we are forced to issue court proceedings to recover the debt, we will seek to claim our court costs and further interest in additional to the outstanding balance. Estimated total £193.

it provides the Annex 1 forms as BW Legal did and the reply form.

Wondering why they have sent it when already passed over to BW Legal and they have already sent me a Letter of Claim. They have also refer to me as Dear Sirs....last time I checked I wasn't a Sir!! What do people think of this?!



Reply to it, definitely follow reasonably and in a timely manner, your side of what is required of a potential defendant at this stage.

I would ask VCS:

- why you have received two different LBCs, one for BW Legal and one from them, both saying different things, so that not only are the reply dates ambiguous and compromised, but the so-called cause of action is different in BW Legal's version than in VCS' version.

- Why did BW Legal say there is ''No public right of way'' on a publicly-open road leading the way to/from an Airport? Do VCS have evidence that this is the case (ask for documentary proof, including maps dated & counter-signed by the Airport, showing designated roads, the boundaries marked out, and proof of private ownership of the roads).

- As for an explanation of BW Legal's response suggesting that ''the byelaws are arbitrary'' because that is clearly not the case according to this FOI request correspondence, and as such this is not 'relevant land' (as defined in the POFA 2012 Schedule 4) at all:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/live..._byelaws_and_re

- A full copy (including any Annexes, Schedules or updates) of VCS' contract from the Airport, that they intend to rely upon at any hearing.

- Copies of all photographs taken and all letters issued (front and back).

- An explanation of whether they are pursuing you under the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, and if not, on what basis are they alleging liability rests with you, the registered keeper?*


And anything else other posters suggest you ask for, that you haven't already got.





*assuming you've never said who was driving (I had not time to read the entire thread again).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
webster1
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:28
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,099



[quote name='nosferatu1001' date='Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 18:28' post='1335744']
Does this comply with the new pre action protocol fir debt claims?
It can’t because of the 14 days time limit, for example.
[/quote

It says 30 days to reply from the date at the top of the letter, which will take it to 28th December. however I have until around the 10th December for the reply to BW Legal. I've received two Letters of Claim now!! One from BW and the other from VCS! Confusing!!


Thanks SchoolRunMum!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:55
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 926
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 18:16) *
Hi all, so today I've received another Letter Before Claim from VCS. States that " We write regarding the outstanding liability. This matter has now been passed to our Legal Department in order to recover the sum of £160 in respect of a PCN for breaching the Terms and Conditions situate3d at LJLA on 17 March. The jum sought is inclusive of a dert collection charge of £60 in accordance with the T&C of parking.

it goes on to state " Despite our best endeavours to recover payments it has proved unsuccessful and as such we have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings. Should the outstanding balance no be settled by the 28th Dec 2017 we will commence legal proceedings against you without further notice. If we are forced to issue court proceedings to recover the debt, we will seek to claim our court costs and further interest in additional to the outstanding balance. Estimated total £193.

it provides the Annex 1 forms as BW Legal did and the reply form.

Wondering why they have sent it when already passed over to BW Legal and they have already sent me a Letter of Claim. They have also refer to me as Dear Sirs....last time I checked I wasn't a Sir!! What do people think of this?!


I wonder if the words
"we have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings."
and
"Should the outstanding balance no be settled by the 28th Dec 2017 we will commence legal proceedings"
and
"If we are forced to issue court proceedings to"

Are a substantial letter before a (certain) claim, or just a last throw of the dice in an attempt to scare someone into paying.

...and TicketMaster seems to have sold out of seats for this one.

This post has been edited by hexaflexagon: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 23:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:04
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,661
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



Notice how the deadline period straddles Christmas. Typical PPC ploy to exert additional pressure at a time when most are stressed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:17
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 926
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 19:21) *
Reply to it, definitely follow reasonably and in a timely manner, your side of what is required of a potential defendant at this stage.

I would ask VCS:

- Why did BW Legal say there is ''No public right of way'' on a publicly-open road leading the way to/from an Airport? Do VCS have evidence that this is the case (ask for documentary proof, including maps dated & counter-signed by the Airport, showing designated roads, the boundaries marked out, and proof of private ownership of the roads).


I'd err with caution on that specific point. In granting Advertising Consent for the Red Rout signage leading to LJLA, Liverpool Council were keen to ensure that 10 metres of the approach road was clearly delineated from what they described as the Airport private roads' The official consent has as one of the conditions.

QUOTE
"The installation of the totems and tarmac road colouring hereby approved and detailed on drawing D161-100-001 Rev P6 shall be undertaken within 3 months from the date of this consent unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: These works are necessary to confirm to third parties that the signs to be retained are not Road Traffic signs and to avoid any confusion as such in the interests of Highway Safety


So LC cleary believe they ared private roads.

Not too sure about the statement that they are not Road Traffic signs since I've seen comments herabouts that the RT Regs. apply where the public are admitted.

This post has been edited by hexaflexagon: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
webster1
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:35
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 14 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,099



Thanks SchoolRunMum!!

So I shouldn't raise that point then hexaflexagon?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:50
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 926
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (webster1 @ Wed, 29 Nov 2017 - 20:35) *
Thanks SchoolRunMum!!

So I shouldn't raise that point then hexaflexagon?


Moot point. I don't see any problem with using SRM's first sentence. Although I'd probably ask that of BWL. In any case it sort of implies that you're wanting evidence anyway

But the last thing you want is for either BWL or VCS to go digging and find that Liverpool Council in particular regard them as private.

YMMV of course.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

25 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: Wednesday, 15th August 2018 - 18:58
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.