PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - VCS in Sheffield - Soft appeal rejected
BigAlC
post Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 11:45
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



Hi all,

I've joined here from MSE in the hope some legal eagles can give me a bit of a pointer regarding the appeal to the entirely "unbias" IAS board.

Here is the link to the MSE topic, but I'll copy the latest post and add some information below;

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5228413

QUOTE
So, as for the pcn. It has been issued under a code 81. "Parked in a restricted area of a car park".

As you can see from the pictures above, there is no signage to dictate that the area is restricted, neither on the floor markings or on posts. This alone makes this ticket null and void in my opinion but obviously they thought otherwise by responding on this point saying;
QUOTE
"As per the statement made by our patrol officer, your vehicle was parked in a restricted area. Specifically, they stated, "not parked in a bay or space, parked in a service bay". The signs on site clearly state, "Park correctly and only between the lines of a single marked bay". It is not unreasonable to expect motorists to check signs in situ before leaving their vehicle.
.


I think they have caught themselves out there, as he says the patrol monkey has said one thing, and their own sign says another. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It goes on to say;
QUOTE
Your vehicle was not parked in a parking bay, and the signs on site indicate that any area that is not a parking bay may not be used for parking. Accordingly, this notice was issued correctly for a breach of the Terms and Conditions displayed on site and quoted above, and the charge will therefore stand. Whilst we appreciate what you have stated in your correspondance, we must advise you that it is the landower's decision whether or not to have lines warning motorists. As the signage in the car park is deemed as adequate, there is no need for lines warning motorists as well.

Personally, I still think this is rubbish. Again though if anyone can enlighten me that would be wonderful.

I also pulled up the charge amount and questioned its value, here is the response;

QUOTE
We note your comments in relation to the amount of our PCN charges and we can confirm that they represent a sum for liquidated and ascertained damages in respect of a breach of the "parking contract". Those charges have been calculated in advance and were clearly set out on the signage. When a motorist parks in breach of the terms and conditions of parking, a loss is incurred by us as incorrect parking prevents the efficient management of the car park. If we are unable to regulate the car park, our clients would not require our services and the company would cease to exist. It is therefore justifiable that the operator seeks to enforce its terms and conditions.


I will be sending another letter to them today, asking for a fully compliant VAT invoice to be sent to me with a breakdown of all charges applied to create the £100 charge. We shall see what they say.


So I will have a look for a template, unless someone wishes to provide something which might stand a chance of getting the PCN thrown out?

It will basically be along the same lines as my original appeal of contravention did not occur due to lack of restricted area signage and ergo lack of signage stipulating where restricted areas are and disproportional charges.

I understand that once this letter is fired off, unless I get a court order or similar I simply ignore further letters, although there is an option to deny the "collection agency" and refer them back to VCS.

Oh as a side note, I'll be getting a witness statement from one of the business owners to add ammo to my rebuttle.

Cheers for any help anyone can offer. I realise it's a mammoth first post and I've probably left loads out, but please ask any questions you need answering.

Al.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 79)
Advertisement
post Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 11:45
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Mon, 11 Jul 2016 - 07:44
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
You should also note that if your claim has been processed through an IAS and an IAS has dismissed your appeal ........


Suggests strongly that this is a template response, the next attempt at a turning of the thumbscrews!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Mon, 11 Jul 2016 - 11:36
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



I have no doubt that it is. The letter has that many no relevant / inconsistent parts to it that I don't even think it was seen by an employee before sending.

I'll just sit and wait.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Wed, 20 Jul 2016 - 13:11
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



I changed my mind. After reading some of the other threads regarding this company, I'm going to fire a response back citing section 10, and lodge a complaint with CSA.

It will be in much similar vein as this post, MSE: section10 post 32, with relevant parts for my response added.

Also compiling complaint via CSA pdf form to post off tonight as well.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 20 Jul 2016 - 20:28
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Good...this is a fightback forum, go for it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 06:43
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



Morning all,

Just bringing an update on the CSA complaint I made.

Below are some copies of the response I received back from BW Legal, I'd appreciate a bit of help on where to go next with this. My opinion is that item 2 and 4 have been glossed over and fallen back on cases which do not apply in my case.

My mind is on next steps which is a complaint to the SRA?

Anyway, I'll leave the images below and will begin to make a start putting something together to send off whilst waiting for comments.

Cheers!

[attachment=43650:csa_comp...onse_pg1.jpg][attachment=43651:csa_comp...onse_pg2.
jpg][attachment=43652:csa_comp...onse_pg3.jpg]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 07:14
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,094
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



Complain again to the CSA about the misleading answer to your complaint. There has been no "offence" committed and as supposedly legally competent organisation they know the meaning of the word and it does not apply here. If they believe there has been an offence, they should detail which statute has been broken and the client's capacity as a prosecuting authority.

With regards to the £54 they claim to charge the Claimant, refer them to ParkingEye v Somerfield and/or to confirm the date and invoice number when the £54 was paid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 12:32
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Indeed

2 is a lie. No "offence" has been committed. They have also utterly misrepresented the Elliot vs Loake case, where NO SUCH PRESUMPTION was created.

This needs strongly rebutting, as they are basically lying to you. This MUST form the basis of a strong complaint to teh SRA and CSA

With regards to the £54 they dont deny that they can recover, they jsut say the charge is reasonable. So again this needs to be pointed out in the cmoplaint - that they KNOW this charge cannotbe rcovered, and they are avoiding the question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hexaflexagon
post Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 13:00
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 979
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
From: Oop t'north
Member No.: 76,816



QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 08:14) *
With regards to the £54 they claim to charge the Claimant, refer them to ParkingEye v Somerfield and/or to confirm the date and invoice number when the £54 was paid.


Devil's advocate check.

Their letter goes on to say that the fees were'detailed in the signage'. If that is so then doesn't that mean, nothwithstanding all the other valid reasons for rejecting the PCN, that the fees form part of the contract if they are fully detailed? e.g. "In addition to the penalty charge a legal admin fee of £54 is also payable"?

This post has been edited by hexaflexagon: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 13:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 13:18
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Except the fees of £54 are made up and do not appear on any sign. Regardless, theyre not recoverable under POFA, and not recovereable in the SCC. I wouldnt use Somerfield as I believe that referred to DEBT COLLECTION costs, whereas these have been described as LEGAL SERVICES - very differet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 13:56
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



[attachment=43661:IMAG0594.jpg]

Here is a photo of the signage on site. Not a mention of £54 only the generic statement of "including interest, and any additional costs incurred" in tiny typeface.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 14:34
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



...whcih arent prominent enough to be incorporated. Any, as theyre described as legal fees, cant be recovered anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 08:49
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



Morning all,

My first draught of the second complaint going to the CSA this week. If you could have a review and suggest some improvements?

A Similar item will be sent to the SRA as well once this one has been polished up a little, and I've read through the SRA code of conduct.

QUOTE
Dear Sir / Madam,

An initial complaint was made to the CSA on 20/07/2016, in which I am yet to receive a response from yourselves on the outcome. However, I have had a direct response from BW Legal and wish to make a further complaint based upon their response.

BW Legal have brazenly lied and misled in their response.
1) Inferring that an "Offence" has taken place, where no such thing has happened.
2) That their costs can be recovered via the small claims court.
3) Complete misrepresentation of previous court decisions in order to support their spurious claims.

There are further breaches of the CSA Code of Practice in which I shall detail below.

In reference to item 1)
1.y. Communicate with customers fairly and transparently, and not intentionally mislead them.
1.aa. Treat customers fairly and not subject customers (or their authorized representatives) to aggressive practices, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether lawful or not.

BW Legal have lied and intentionally misled. No Offence has taken place, and as a supposedly competent company within the legal sector they should know the meaning of the word and not be inciting panic or unfairly mislead the consumer otherwise. Simply put the word offence does not apply in this instance. Should an offence have been committed BW Legal should refer to which statute has been broken and detail the clients capacity as a prosecuting authority.

In reference to item 2)
1.k. Inform their clients of the true rates of charges for services rendered.
10.k. Only impose such costs and interest on customers as it is lawfully entitled.

BW Legal are attempting to add onto the alleged charge, £54 to send a template batch of letters, and work in a debt collection capacity. Statute limits my liability to the alleged charge to the amount of the original alleged charge only. There is no detail of any further costs detailed on sign-age or otherwise and therefore the £54 costs cannot be recovered at a later stage.
Again as a supposedly competent legal entity BW Legal are aware that this cannot be recovered and have avoided the question with a generic response. Legal fees cannot be recovered under either POFA 2012 or within the Small Claims Court.

In reference to item 3)
1.a. Conduct its business in compliance with all relevant legislation, regulations, regulatory guidance and requirements and this Code of Practice
1.y. Communicate with customers fairly and transparently, and not intentionally mislead them.
1.aa. Treat customers fairly and not subject customers (or their authorized representatives) to aggressive practices, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether lawful or not.
10.c. Not mislead customers as to the consequences or inevitability of consequences arising from any legal or bankruptcy action

BW Legal have no cause of action against me as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) yet continue to harass me.
BW Legal have intentionally attempted to mislead me by suggesting that Elliot VS Loake [1982] and Parking Eye Limited VS Beavis [2015] are relevant to this case when they clearly are not.

7.e. When making written contact, adhere to the CSA Guidance on Debt Collection Communication, and ensure communications are written and produced in line with applicable regulations, legislation and regulatory guidance.

BW Legal have avoided answering and continued to intentionally misrepresent the legal process by implying that a CCJ that may have an effect on my future creditworthiness and employ-ability would be entered following a successful hearing without need for any further application to the court. BW Legal have failed to indicate that a further application to the court is required before enforcement action can be taken. BW Legal communications are further misleading in that they have pre-empted that I will be liable for Court Fees, further solicitor’s costs and statutory interest whereas in fact this is a judgment at the discretion of the court.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Mon, 5 Sep 2016 - 14:09
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



My draught to be sent to the SRA imminently.

May not be 100% but a good starter for 10, with some parts lifted from various things I've found, and reading through the SRA code of conduct.

Comments welcome.


QUOTE
I am complaining about BW Legal’s assertions in their 'Letter of Claim' ('Final Notice') dated XX/XX/XXXX (copy supplied) and their response to a Credit Services Association (“CSA”) complaint dated XX/XX/XXXX (copy supplied) with reference to a Parking Charge Notice which I received on the XX/XX/XXXX. These letters include the following statements by BW Legal which I found alarming and I believe are misleading and untrue:
“Final Notice” letter;
(1) “In the event our client issues County Court Proceedings, and successfully obtains a County Court Judgement (“CCJ”)….”

(2) They state that their client also ''reserves the right to commence enforcement proceedings...for recovery of the CCJ award'' as if a CCJ is a fait accompli.

(3) “You should also note that if your claim has already been processed through and Independent Appeal Service (“IAS”) and an IAS has dismissed your appeal, then it is likely that a County Court will come to a similar conclusion and your defence will be unsuccessful.”

(4) “Our client now requires full payment of the Balance within 10 days from the date of this letter, this date being, 12 July 2016, failing which our client has instructed us to commence County Court proceedings against you for recovery of the Balance. For the avoidance of doubt the Balance relates to the £100.00 parking charge and £54.00 for our client’s initial legal fees, which were detailed in the car park terms and conditions.”

(5) They also make reference to the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 where they say, ''the Supreme Court held that parking charges were a legitimate commercial interest'' and that ''this case eliminates any defence'' I might have should the matter go to court.

CSA Complaint response letter;
(1A) “As there has been an offence committed, you are liable for the outstanding Balance due.”

(2A) “Our Client will be relying on the case of Elliot v Loake [1982] where it was held that there is a presumption that the registered keeper of the vehicle is the driver and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this presumption is reasonable.”

(3A) Again reference to the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 where they say, ''the Supreme Court held that parking charges were a legitimate commercial interest'' and that their legal fees “were detailed in the signage at the location of the PCN contravention”.

I am aware that those assertions and statements are contrary to the SRA’s Code of Conduct 2011, Chapter 11: Relations with third parties, specifically covered under Outcomes O(11.1) and Indicative Behaviours IB(11.7) and IB(11.8).

These statements take unfair advantage of the addressee’s lack of legal knowledge where they have not instructed a lawyer, by stating untruths and making unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims. I am an unrepresented consumer and was distressed to read the letter from BW Legal and was certainly misled by it. This complaint is now sent to the SRA as a result of the fact that BW Legal continue to threaten and mislead regardless of the fact that these statements breach the SRA Code and such conduct should not be allowed to continue.

Regarding statement (1) and (2) I am advised that BW Legal will know that, even if they were to bring County Court proceedings for their client against the addressee, and even if those were successful, they would not be an automatically granted CCJ against the addressee; of course a CCJ would only be obtained in such a situation if the addressee, after being taken to court successfully and after being ordered by the County Court to pay BW Legal’s client, would then still not pay.
It is unfounded and unsubstantiated for BW Legal to assert that this is a likely scenario and describe 'recovery of the CCJ Award' as if it is almost inevitable. This assertion is made to coerce the addressee of BW Legal’s letter into paying their demand. This is taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee and I was certainly alarmed and distressed to read such statements.

Statement (4) is a clear demand by BW Legal on behalf of their client for a sum of £54.00 that is not legally recoverable. BW Legal will know that it has been held countless times that when instructed to collect a simple debt, demanding from the debtor the debt recovery costs is taking unfair advantage since it cannot be said at that stage that such a cost is legally recoverable; particularly since those costs have not been substantiated at all. It is also part of the Civil Procedure Rules that charges for “Legal services” even if invoiced and paid are unrecoverable in the Small Claims Court. This is therefore again clearly taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee.

Statement (3) is a clear attempt at coercing myself in to believing that because an IAS might have agreed with the initial issue of the Parking Charge Notice, that a judge would reach the same decision so I “might as well not bother” with my appeal and I should just give in. I find it astounding that such terminology is acceptable within a legal letter.

Statements (5, 2A and 3A) are deliberately intended to mislead and are absolutely irresponsible. To inform a recipient of a letter about a parking charge which does not in any way match the facts of the Beavis or Loake cases that they have no defence because it has been 'eliminated' beggars belief and again, I was completely misled by this assertion.
Consumers are being coerced into paying charges which bear no relation to the circumstances of the fairly unique 'Beavis case', which I am advised the Supreme Court were at pains to 'Tweet' straight after their decision, turned on the specific legitimate interest of the landowner in a particular retail park, based on the clear terms on the signs in that car park alone. My case is nothing like that case, however if I was to believe BW Legal’s letter I would have thought - as I initially did, in a panic - that I have no defence and must just pay their client. A similar line of thought can be applied to the ‘Loake case’ in which, irrefutable evidence was presented that the driver was indeed the defendant. No such presumption of registered keeper being the driver was inferred or given, and should I have not been aware of this case, then again I would have immediately thought I had no ground to stand on.

Statement (1A) is, in its most simple form, a LIE. There has been no “offence” committed, and this is a clear breach of the SRA code of conduct. As a legally “competent” entity they should know the meaning of the word and it clearly does not apply to this matter. Should an offence have been committed they need to detail which statute has been broken and in what the clients capacity is as a prosecuting authority. BW Legal are clearly not acting within the SRA Principals.

It is understood that BW Legal is sending out identical Letters of Claim/Final Notices on an industrial scale (for the same client and for other private parking companies) to addressees all of whom will be legally unrepresented.

I would therefore respectfully request the SRA to take swift enforcement action to ensure that BW Legal stops issuing assertions and statements which are clearly used to coerce consumer recipients into paying unjustified and unenforceable demands.

The SRA has a list of principals in which I feel it is clear that BW Legal do not conform and are breaking on a daily basis the longer their tenure as an SRA member goes on. They do not act with integrity, they do not uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice, and they are not behaving in a way that maintains the trust of the public in the provision of legal services.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Tue, 6 Sep 2016 - 06:45
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



Letters printed and ready to send to CSA and SRA. Now, just to put a short one together for the attention of BW Legal.

Should keep them quiet for a little while receiving that double whammy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Tue, 6 Sep 2016 - 09:16
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
The SRA has a list of principals

Principles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Tue, 20 Sep 2016 - 07:03
Post #76


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



Small update: Response from SRA received (pretty much template acknowledgement) regarding the complaint I've lodged.

Still waiting on a response from the CSA ref my second complaint.

Should keep them tied up nicely until November time though.


This post has been edited by BigAlC: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 - 07:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 08:06
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



Update time:

After a hiatus of contact, the BW letters have started up again. I now have my second "Final Notice" letter from them. It's slightly changed from the first one I received but much the same drivel.

Am I safe in thinking that something like the following would be sufficient to keep the tennis going?

QUOTE
Thank you for your template letter titled “Final Notice” dated xxxx

I deny any debt to your client Vehicle Control Services.

I note your attempt to mislead me throughout your correspondence and, should the correct Letter Before Claim be issued, the various failings of your letter shall be defended in the small claims court.

When I receive a properly formatted Letter Before Claim in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims, I will provide a more detailed response. I will also, at that time, inform you of the documents and information that I require to make an informed decision.

Yours faithfully


I'm bored of the threatening letters now, and even the missus is laughing each time a BW envelope turns up now. They have lost in the car park in question before for the exact same reason as chasing me, so I have little worry about going to court.

TIA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 08:32
Post #78


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I would include the ref to the prior letters, and notice it is misleading ot issue multiple "letters bfore claim", and certainly falls squarely into the realms of harasssment.

You could also include their lost claims.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 09:22
Post #79


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 09:32) *
I would include the ref to the prior letters, and notice it is misleading ot issue multiple "letters bfore claim", and certainly falls squarely into the realms of harasssment.

You could also include their lost claims.


I shall do.

Is there a site I can find a list of all their court results? There was a user on here that went to court, won, but didn't put a case number up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 12:49
Post #80


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



Well, the updated letter is drafted and will be dispatched later today (certificate of posting obtained obviously).

I shall let you know what happens next. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:47
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here