Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ Vehicle Control Services

Posted by: tonybaloney Tue, 19 Apr 2011 - 20:14
Post #583917

I got a ticket from this lot a couple of weeks ago, in Sheffield. Me and a mate were working and had my van parked in my clients parking spot, which is controlled by VCS. I'd had a permit and a note on my dash, saying where I was working and even the operatives number, who'd said we were ok to park there a couple of weeks earlier.
We'd been there all day, without a problem aswell as all the previous day. We nipped out to the suppliers and came back about an hour later to get some paperwork signed.
The permit and note must have fallen off the dash, while we were out without us seeing. When we came back to the van, about 20 minutes after parking up, there was a ticket on it asking for the usual extortionate fee of £80.
I sent an email in, telling VCS of the circumstances. As expected, they said that the ticket would stand and gave me another 2 weeks to pay, which ends on 21/4/11, or it would go up to £120.
I know all the advice says to ignore the notice and don't acknowledge them, but if they tracked down my company as the registered keeper, they'd pay the fee and take it out of my wages aswell as a nice little "admin fee".
I can't make my mind up if the notice is filled in correctly, as the contravention code is only filled in on the bottom section of the ticket.
Any advice on this would be a great help.


Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 - 20:28
Post #583923

It matters not whether the "ticket" is filled out correctly or not. It's rubbish. I very much doubt that your employer can deduct it from your wages if they do pay up as a result of their stupidity.

Posted by: tonybaloney Tue, 19 Apr 2011 - 20:53
Post #583929

Our company is like most big companies- they act first then worry about if it's right afterwards. It's written into the company vehicle policy aswell.
I was wondering if VCS have actually taken anyone to court lately and if so, what was the outcome?

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 - 21:28
Post #583940

QUOTE (tonybaloney @ Tue, 19 Apr 2011 - 21:53) *
Our company is like most big companies- they act first then worry about if it's right afterwards. It's written into the company vehicle policy aswell.


I'm sure the resultant tribunal claim will disabuse them of that notion. I doubt that the company vehicle policy allows them to deduct from your wages if they stupidly pay an invoice from a PPC (as opposed to a penalty charge from the council or an FPN from the police).

QUOTE
I was wondering if VCS have actually taken anyone to court lately and if so, what was the outcome?


Not that I know of.

Posted by: roythebus Tue, 19 Apr 2011 - 21:33
Post #583943

As SP says, if they make an unlawful deduction from your wages, they should find themselves in an industrial tribunal which will be very expensive for them.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Tue, 19 Apr 2011 - 22:27
Post #583951

It would be interesting to see what the company vehicle policy actually says?

Bear in mind that this isn't a fine nor a penalty nor a traffic offence - how exactly can the vehicle policy cover this scenario, tonybaloney, what does the wording say? Fines/penalties? Not this unjustified invoice then!

I would check the wording and let the Fleet Manager (or your Line Management) know that there was a fake PCN from a private company alleging a breach of contract which you deny and concerns you alone. They have zero liability but you want them to be aware of this, in case the company try writing to the keeper. Show them this link if the Manager is daft enough not to be able to tell the difference between a real Penalty Charge and a private, unsolicited invoice:

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2009/5/28/question-private-parking-fines-fleets-urged/30698/

HTH

Posted by: tonybaloney Wed, 20 Apr 2011 - 15:20
Post #584133

I had a word with one of the fleet managers today and they seem to have changed how they handle tickets. It seems that they try to handle them a bit more "informally" now.
To be honest, I'm not too worried about how they deal with it, because I can get the union involved if they try and deduct anything. Like I said- I just didn't want my company getting involved when it's not really anything to do with them.
Is it still the best thing to just ignore all the letters, or is it worth letting them know that I won't be paying, so they can cut their "losses"?

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 20 Apr 2011 - 15:28
Post #584137

Telling them you won't be paying will make no difference, they work by worry and you won't worry if no letters are sent.

Have you checked that policy yet?

Simon

Posted by: tonybaloney Wed, 20 Apr 2011 - 15:57
Post #584140

I just checked our vehicle policy. It states that "Fines and fixed Penalties" will incur an admin charge of £15 and will be recovered from the employers salary. As this isn't a fine or fixed penalty, I suppose they might have a problem if they tried to take ie- especially without asking me first. My union rep would have a field day!

Posted by: emanresu Wed, 20 Apr 2011 - 16:04
Post #584142

May I suggest you still give the union the heads up so other less informed employers can be informed.

Posted by: tonybaloney Tue, 3 May 2011 - 15:02
Post #586972

I just received my eagerly awaited my " Notice of Intent To Proceed " letter. Does this look pretty standard to everyone?




Posted by: Gan Tue, 3 May 2011 - 15:11
Post #586979

Perfectly standard letter complete with "court proceedings MAY be taken" not "will".

Wonder where they get the £50 solicitor fee from. Didn't think these could be recovered in Small Claims Court.

If they actually took more (any?) claims all the way they ought to know this.

Posted by: ManxRed Tue, 3 May 2011 - 15:20
Post #586989

Interesting that they've put a statement near the top stating that liability lies with the driver. Presumably they've posted it to the RK though, given that it's titled 'Notice to Owner'.

How does that work then?

Posted by: tonybaloney Wed, 6 May 2015 - 17:21
Post #1073574

Hello again,

It seems that the latest trend is to send out speculative letters, refering to old PCN's. I received one referring to to the above PCN, the other day from Rossendales.
It went to my old house though and the girl who now lives there isn't great at passing the mail on.
I compiled this response, as I don't want any hairy menacing blokes turning up on her doorstep before coming to me.

I'd appreciate any comments:

I received the letter from yourselves, regarding this matter today. The reason being that I moved house and now live at the above address.
In reference to the letter, I deny any debt to Vehicle Control Services Ltd and so according to law, you need to refer the matter back to your client.
I will under no circumstances make any payment to your company.
Do not contact me about this matter again. Any further contact regarding this matter will be considered harassment under the Harrassment Act 1997 (please refer to Ferguson v British Gas.)

Yours Faithfully


Thanks for any help.

Posted by: tonybaloney Wed, 6 May 2015 - 21:29
Post #1073678

I just posted this as a reply to my original post, but realised that it might not get seen.

Basically, I've just received a letter to my old address from Rossendales, which refers to this PCN:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=61000&st=0

I've drafted a response, but would appreciate some guidance as to whether I'm taking the right course of action.

This is my response:

I received the letter from yourselves, regarding this matter today. The reason being that I moved house and now live at the above address.
In reference to the letter, I deny any debt to Vehicle Control Services Ltd and so according to law, you need to refer the matter back to your client.
I will under no circumstances make any payment to your company.
Do not contact me about this matter again. Any further contact regarding this matter will be considered harassment under the Harrassment Act 1997 (please refer to Ferguson v British Gas.)

Yours faithfully


Any advice would be welcomed-thanks.

Posted by: Gan Wed, 6 May 2015 - 21:48
Post #1073691

QUOTE (tonybaloney @ Wed, 6 May 2015 - 22:29) *
I just posted this as a reply to my original post, but realised that it might not get seen.

Basically, I've just received a letter to my old address from Rossendales, which refers to this PCN:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=61000&st=0

I've drafted a response, but would appreciate some guidance as to whether I'm taking the right course of action.

This is my response:

I received the letter from yourselves, regarding this matter today. The reason being that I moved house and now live at the above address.
In reference to the letter,
I deny any debt to Vehicle Control Services Ltd and so according to law the Financial Conduct Authority Consumer Credit sourcebook, you need to refer the matter back to your client.
I will under no circumstances make any payment to your company.
Do not contact me about this matter again. Any further contact regarding this matter will be considered harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (please refer to Ferguson v British Gas.)

Yours faithfully


Any advice would be welcomed-thanks.


Posted by: emanresu Thu, 7 May 2015 - 04:49
Post #1073734

From the last thread which is likely to identify you, I can see you received the "Notice of Intention to Proceed" - and yet they did not. Strange that.

You'll get a reply from Rozzies saying that the client has declined to call them off so you may want to point out that as you have already received the NIP letter (ho ho) you can only conclude that their client has waived their rights to proceed and there is no merit in their claim. As such Roxxies would be wasting their time contacting you again.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 7 May 2015 - 05:45
Post #1073738

There is no law that says they have to refer it back, best not say things that make you look ill informed, it relates to the code of practice.




Posted by: tonybaloney Thu, 7 May 2015 - 06:31
Post #1073744

Thanks for the replies everyone- I'll send off my response and see what comes back. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: tonybaloney Tue, 30 Aug 2016 - 21:46
Post #1207096

Hi again,

The latest update on this is that I've just received the standard letter from BWLegal, stating that the "debt" has been passed to them. I've read about the £54 being un-recoverable, but I just want a bit of clarification on where I stand as the original notice was received in early 2011. Also, they know I was the driver as it was a company van- the thread details the reasons etc.
As they know who was driving, is there any benefit in giving my correct address to respond to?
I've only just received the letter, as again it went to my previous address. This only gives me 3 days to respond (they allow 16 days from the date of the letter), which is why I'm after a quick heads up on where I stand.
Any help would be much appreciated.


Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 30 Aug 2016 - 21:52
Post #1207097

I'd imagine you're in much the same position as the people in the dozens of other BW Legal threads.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Tue, 30 Aug 2016 - 22:17
Post #1207102

QUOTE (tonybaloney @ Tue, 30 Aug 2016 - 22:46) *
The latest update on this is that I've just received the standard letter from BWLegal, stating that the "debt" has been passed to them. I've read about the £54 being un-recoverable, but I just want a bit of clarification on where I stand as the original notice was received in early 2011. Also, they know I was the driver as it was a company van- the thread details the reasons etc.
As they know who was driving, is there any benefit in giving my correct address to respond to?
I've only just received the letter, as again it went to my previous address. This only gives me 3 days to respond (they allow 16 days from the date of the letter), which is why I'm after a quick heads up on where I stand.


The very quickest heads-up would be, as Southpaw effectively suggests in his post, reading the advice already posted day in day out about these exact same letters, since a few months ago when the deluge started. It's quicker to read advice already posted recently, than waiting on this isolated thread for an odd snippet of advice and you will find much more already posted than anyone can manage to post again.

Examples of replies, complaints and how to word them & who to send them to, the lot has been covered several times in this past week alone - even more if you go back further on the forum thread list.

Dunno about everyone else but I'm pretty jaded with the repeated BW Legal threads - but we want you to find what you need and the info is here waiting for you to read it. Do not reply if any poster pm's you offering to 'help' off the thread. You can't be sure who that is and what their agenda might be and you really need nothing more than is posted here umpteen times over. The advice has not changed in the weeks we've been covering this blizzard of BW Legal letters and all versions have been seen and commented on before.

Posted by: tonybaloney Tue, 30 Aug 2016 - 22:23
Post #1207105

I've had a look around the threads, but they all seem to be more recent than mine. I wasn't sure if there was anything different that needed adding to a reply because they know the driver and also that it was from over 5 and a half years ago.
Also, is it acceptable to email them or is it better to write?

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Tue, 30 Aug 2016 - 22:29
Post #1207110

Try searching Google then - keywords 'BW Legal 2011 pepipoo' finds the August threads exactly like yours, in less than one second.

Posted by: tonybaloney Wed, 31 Aug 2016 - 13:03
Post #1207294

Ok, so here goes. After reading as many posts as I can, I've come up with this reply:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 17 August 2016.
As previously communicated to your client, I refute any debt and will dispute this vigorously in the event of any court action.

The costs stated refer to “Initial Legal Costs” of £54. As you should be aware, these are non-recoverable under POFA 4(5) and so I suggest you inform your client before costs exceed anything that may be recoverable. If you are aware of this, I can only assume that you are attempting to exploit my supposed lack of knowledge which breaches The Solicitors Code Of Conduct Chapter 11.

I have also noted that this letter was sent to my previous address. The correct address was communicated to your client following the last correspondence relating to this claim. This would leave me to believe that it was sent in the hope that it would remain un-challenged and an “easy win” could be obtained.

I now require you to respond within 14 days stating that the above matter is now closed and that you have removed all details relating to it from any databases shared between yourselves and VCS Ltd. Should you fail to confirm this, I will file a formal complaint with ICO, the SRA and CSA regarding breaches of the relevant codes.

Yours Faithfully

I'm still not sure whether to attach my proper address and post it or whether to email it to them and leave them to try and find my letter with it on. They also have a web portal, but I'm not sure whether to trust that or not.

Thanks again for any help

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 31 Aug 2016 - 13:05
Post #1207297

Given if they ever make a claim, it would get sent by post from the court, I would suggest making sure there is no way they can claim they didnt know your current address.

Web portal is fine. Screenshot to show you filled it out.

Posted by: tonybaloney Tue, 6 Sep 2016 - 20:49
Post #1209541

I've managed to find all the original paperwork etc ,by searching all my old hard drives and realised that the amounts being claimed vary from £120 on the original notice to £100 by Rossendales and BW.
Although it definitely shows a lack of communication between them and highlights their incompitence, could it also be used in my defence in case it gets to court?
I'm just in the process of drafting complaint letters and thought it was also worth including.

Posted by: tonybaloney Tue, 13 Sep 2016 - 19:38
Post #1211658

I've had another letter from BW today, which I'd appreciate some advice on please.
I've had a look round and haven't found a similar letter. It doesn't really say much, so I'm not sure how to respond.
One thing is that they obviously haven't seen the original PCN, as they refer to paying for a ticket although it was a free car park using permits.

Do I respond by repeating my previous denial of debt and stating that I will now file the formal complaint to the SRA and CSA? I also thought about including references to Ibbotson V VCS, regarding authority to take legal action and VCS v HMRC regarding a VAT invoice. Would this be too much, too soon or is it good to fire a warning shot this early?

Thanks again for any advice.
 BWLegal_Letter_2_Annotated.compressed.pdf ( 154.64K ) : 144


Posted by: peterguk Tue, 13 Sep 2016 - 19:48
Post #1211663

QUOTE (tonybaloney @ Tue, 13 Sep 2016 - 20:38) *
It doesn't really say much


So why bother responding?

Posted by: tonybaloney Tue, 13 Sep 2016 - 22:15
Post #1211724

I was thinking of replying, just to drag it out and to state again that I've no intention of paying. Also, to make them aware that I'm sending in the complaints.
If it ends up in court, my thinking was that I've given them enough warnings and chances to drop it, which the judge will obviously see.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 13 Sep 2016 - 22:33
Post #1211732

It's the same template as found in other threads. So the same response I'd merited at most.

Posted by: tonybaloney Thu, 15 Sep 2016 - 12:05
Post #1212189

Could someone have a look at my letter of complaint to the SRA, please? I've tweaked a letter from Pappa Golf on Moneysavingexpert's forum and just want an opinion on whether anything isn't relevant.
I'd appreciate any advice on this, as always.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am contacting you in reference to the behavior of one of your member companies.
I believe you are aware of a number of complaints regarding BW Legal, based in Leeds.

I recently received a letter, dated ........, attempting to get me to pay a disputed invoice from Vehicle Control Services Ltd, plus costs imposed by themselves, of £54. The total claimed was £174.

There were a number of statements, which I found distressing and have since been advised, are misleading and untrue:

(1) “Should we successfully obtain a County Court Judgement (CCJ), this may have a detrimental effect on your future credit worthiness and employability.”

(2) They state that their client also ''reserves the right to commence enforcement proceedings against you for the balance due'' as if a CCJ is a fait accompli.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt the Balance relates to the £120.00 PCN and £54.00 for our client’s initial legal fees, which are detailed in the car park terms and conditions.”

I am advised that those assertions and statements are contrary to the SRA’s Code of Conduct 2011, Chapter 11: Relations with third parties, and particularly are covered under 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.

I have been advised to submit this complaint as it breaches the SRA code of conduct.

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, it is implied that this would result in a CCJ against the addressee. 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 (3) 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. This is therefore again clearly taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee. It also refers to Terms and Conditions which are currently in place and not which were in place at the time of the initial invoice.

It is understood that letters of this type are being issued on a large scale, by this company to take advantage of all previous invoices that aren’t legally represented and may now have changed address.

I would therefore respectfully request the SRA take 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. 

Yours Faithfully


Again- thanks for looking. I just need one for the CSA now.

Posted by: tonybaloney Tue, 20 Sep 2016 - 20:38
Post #1213653

Hello again,
I've drafted a CSA complaint and would appreciate some feedback before I submit it, please:

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to complain about one of your member companies and their behavior in the management of an alleged debt .

BW Legal wrote to me on the DATE , regarding an unpaid PCN (Parking Charge Notice), dating back to 2011. They informed me that their client- VCS Ltd had passed the “debt” onto them.

The CSA Code of Practice, Section 1g states that members should “ensure that any communication complies with this Code of Practice and is in plain English”
The letter, I believe, breaches your Code of Practice for the following reasons(Text copied exactly as written.):

1. “For the avoidance of doubt, the Balance Due includes the £120.00 PCN charge plus Our Client’s initial legal costs of £54.00, which are detailed in the car park terms and conditions.”
This contradicts Section 10k- “only impose such costs and interest on customers as it is lawfully entitled”, as they are aware that they are unable to reclaim this cost in court.
It also contradicts Section 1k- “inform their clients of the true rates of charges for services rendered”. The true cost of sending one letter cannot be £54, otherwise the costs would spiral with every piece of correspondence.

2. “In the event County Court Proceedings are issued you may be liable for Court fees, further solicitors costs and statutory interest. Should we successfully obtain a County Court Judgement (“CCJ”), this may have a detrimental effect on your creditworthiness and employability. Our client also reserves the right to commence enforcement proceedings against you for recovery of balance due.”
The CSA Code Of Practice states in Section 1y, members are to “communicate with customers fairly and transparently, and not intentionally mislead them”
As a Debt Recovery Company, BWLegal should be aware that a CCJ would not have any effect on creditworthiness or employability, unless a payment plan is not set up or the debt goes unpaid after 14 days of the judgement. Therefore, it is my belief that the above statement was included in a deliberate attempt to frighten the addressee into paying up.

The above statement also contravenes your Use, Format and Content Of Standard Debt Collection Communication document, which states in Section D, Para 1.1 “The OFT has seen a number of standard letters issued by DCAs which contain inaccuracies and omissions in their description of the debt recovery procedure and the legal process, and which fail to mention that steps are required before enforcement action can be taken. For example:
Letters which set out the potential enforcement actions following non-payment of a County Court Judgment (eg bailiffs seizing goods, employers deducting money from wages) without indicating that a further application to the court is required before enforcement action can be taken (ie to obtain a Warrant of Execution, Attachment of Earnings, Charging Order, etc)”


3. Section 1d says that members should “make available on their website (if they have one), or following a request, a copy of this CSA Code of Practice”.
After searching their website, there is nothing to suggest that a copy is available or even could be, if requested.


This letter was followed up with another letter, dated DATE. In this letter, they stated:
“The terms and conditions (“the Terms”) of the Car Park (which were displayed within the Car Park) required you place, on clear display, a valid parking ticket so that Excel’s agent could easily identify that a parking ticket had been purchased. You failed to comply with the aforementioned Terms and are therefore in breach of Terms and are consequently liable to pay the balance.”

There are a number of inaccuracies in this statement:
1. The car park is a Permit Car Park and so, a “valid parking ticket” cannot be purchased.
2. Their client is VCS Ltd and not Excel.

The fact that these statements are the basic facts of their complaint, leads me to believe that this is a simple “copy and paste” template letter, which demonstrates their lack of regard towards the way that their clients are dealt with.

I look forward to a full investigation into the methods that this company are employing and await your response.

Yours Faithfully


Once again, any advice on anything that needs adding or removing is appreciated.

Posted by: tonybaloney Thu, 22 Sep 2016 - 14:15
Post #1214232

Hi again,

I've just received the latest letter from BW. It's titled "Letter of Claim", this time. It's the usual one which mentions Beavis.
Could someone just confirm whether this is their attempt at making me believe that it's a letter before action, or whether I'm due another one sometime soon, please?
I've had a look through Practice Direction and it doesn't comply at all. I've also looked at a lot of similar letters, but with different titles and want to be sure so I send the right response.

Thanks again

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 22 Sep 2016 - 14:24
Post #1214235

If its called Letter of CLaim, it can reasonably be interpreted that they are considering it a letter before action. So I would respond as such

Reiterate the same points in a small summary, rebutting their usual rubbish, and point out they have failed to follow the practice directions. Given some small details of this, as they have responded back claiming otherwise in other threads - with actual documented proof theyre incompetent, it will make their wiggling even more fun to see!

Posted by: tonybaloney Thu, 22 Sep 2016 - 14:34
Post #1214240

Thanks Nosferatu- Can I just clarify something? They refer to a "legitimate commercial Interest", in reference to their costs and Beavis- does this still apply if it was a free, permit operated parking space? I got the impression that was usually used for Pay and Displays or shopping precincts.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 22 Sep 2016 - 14:46
Post #1214249

Thats a reference to Beavis. Theyre claiming they should make money from it, and / or that the place parked at needed to maintain turnover.

its rubbish. However directly attack it.

Posted by: tonybaloney Thu, 22 Sep 2016 - 16:43
Post #1214278

Also I found out, the other day, that VCS's client may have gone into liquidation the year before my PCN. Does this have any relevance ie would VCS still have a contract in place, or are they just trying to recoup some money from a client that's gone bust?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 22 Sep 2016 - 17:13
Post #1214286

As I understand it, once they go into liquidation, there is no longer a contract. This would mean they cannot offer parking contracts (they have no standing).

Get the companies house records, show it is in liquidation and the date, boom there is no case IF the company was the one they had contract with.

Posted by: tonybaloney Thu, 22 Sep 2016 - 17:20
Post #1214289

Excellent- that's what I was hoping. When I say there are a few, it looks like they're the same group with the same name, but different divisions for slightly different work streams. They've all been dissolved in the last couple of years, but most of them went into liquidation before my PCN.
I'm tempted to leave it right up to the last minute before asking them wink.gif

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 22 Sep 2016 - 17:32
Post #1214294

You would want to be sure of your basis though - ensure there is no landowner the parking company is contracted to, as would be common if it is say a mixed retail site.

Posted by: tonybaloney Thu, 22 Sep 2016 - 18:29
Post #1214309

They've named the company on their letters, which is how I found out who it was. The company were a management company, who I presume managed it for the landowner. It's not retail, just offices.
I'm guessing that the fact that VCS were running it for a management company, makes it even less likely that they had the right to take legal action. If I ask who they had a contract with and what rights the contract gave them, they'd have to name them and so I could confirm it.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 23 Sep 2016 - 06:53
Post #1214419

Indeed, however remember you haveto disclose your defence in advance, usually at least 14 days before the hearing, so would want to have the informaiton in place by then

Use the "good faith belief" that their claimed contract with the management company (see letter X where they confirm the company who hired them) to no longer be valid because on X date Y company went into liquidation. Confirm the rules on this, as I said, I am not 100% but I thought any company in liquidation couldnt hold contracts any longer.

Posted by: tonybaloney Sat, 24 Sep 2016 - 17:45
Post #1214479

Thanks again, Nosferatu. I've drafted a first attempt at my response, so I'd appreciate any feedback on it, please:

I write in response to your letter, dated DATE OF LETTER. As this letter does not conform to the format required by the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, Annex A Para 2, I require confirmation that you deem it to be such.

Should you consider this letter to be a compliant Letter Before Action, I will be making a Section 18 request for all relevant information and supporting documentation. This will consist of, but may not be limited to:

I. Clarification of which client you are acting for. You refer to two different clients in your correspondence.
II. The name of the Landowner for whom your client was acting at the time.
III. What act or omission gave rise to cause of action.
IV. Copies of signage in place at the time.
V. A full, un-redacted copy of the contract between your client and Landowner or Management Company, giving them permission to instigate legal action, in accordance with the BPA Legislation Guide To Operators which applied at the time.
VI. Is this claim based on a contractual agreement, breach of contract or trespass?
VII. Justification for your reference to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis and the relevance to this claim.

To clarify the first point in the letter, you state “we are yet to receive payment and/ or a response to our letter”. This refers to your letter dated DATE OF LETTER. This letter was responded to by email on DATE OF EMAIL by email; a confirmation email was sent from yourselves immediately afterwards.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have now submitted complaints to the SRA and CSA, as advised in my previous letter. Should I not receive a correctly formatted Letter Before Action within 14 days, I shall be forwarding this latest letter as further evidence in the investigation being carried out by the SRA.

Yours Faithfully

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sat, 24 Sep 2016 - 23:36
Post #1214555

Any reason you're referring to annex A?

When copying and pasting, check that the information is correct 😄

Part 18.

Posted by: tonybaloney Sun, 25 Sep 2016 - 07:46
Post #1214570

Thanks again- I wondered about the Annex part, as I couldn't find it anywhere on the document.
I noticed, after my last email to them, that they didn't provide an automatic confirmation like the first time. Does email have the same same consideration as snail mail ie if it was sent, it must have been received or is it better to just mail it?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sun, 25 Sep 2016 - 12:45
Post #1214657

If they accept documents by email then retain proof of sending. Cc it to another address.

If you have doubt, use first class post.

Posted by: tonybaloney Fri, 30 Sep 2016 - 19:40
Post #1216496

A quick update on this- I've now had replies from the CSA and SRA to say that they're both investigating BW. Just in case anyones keeping count.
I suppose their file is getting quite big now. wink.gif

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sat, 1 Oct 2016 - 00:25
Post #1216536

Fingers crossed 😀

Posted by: Lynnzer Sat, 1 Oct 2016 - 09:14
Post #1216558

QUOTE (tonybaloney @ Fri, 30 Sep 2016 - 20:40) *
A quick update on this- I've now had replies from the CSA and SRA to say that they're both investigating BW. Just in case anyones keeping count.
I suppose their file is getting quite big now. wink.gif

There's more than a few worms in their can for sure.


Posted by: tonybaloney Thu, 1 Dec 2016 - 18:49
Post #1236357

Hello again- The latest update on this, is that BW have replied to say that they don't agree with my complaint to the CSA. Surprise surprise!!
They've given me 14 days to respond, otherwise they'll assume that I'm happy with their resolution and update their records accordingly. I'm going to respond, as again, they've referred to a different amount to the original PCN (£100 instead of the original £120) and made further reference to Beavis- stating that PCN charges "serve a legitimate commercial interest".
A couple of things that I'd just like to check before I reply:

1- By replying, does this still restrict them from any legal action, as it will still be in dispute?
2- Am I right in my understanding of ParkingEye v Beavis that there was a legitimate commercial justification as it was in a Shopping Precinct, so was implemented to ensure a higher turn over of customers for the shops? My PCN was for a permit which wasn't displayed in a private parking space whilst I was working for the company that leased the space.

Any advice is gratefully accepted, as usual.

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 2 Dec 2016 - 07:28
Post #1236489

QUOTE
a legitimate commercial justification


In the claims I've seen, the "legitimate commercial justification" they refer to is the PPC's and not the clients. Why not ask them to explain the "legitimate commercial justification" in more detail.

Since BW Legal have been churning these out with this "error" in it, it appears they don't understand the Beavis case or are even bothering to quote it correctly. And the comment about the CSA is just par for the course.

Posted by: tonybaloney Fri, 2 Dec 2016 - 07:55
Post #1236497

Thanks emanresu- I asked them to explain their reference in my last email to them and it looks like you're right- they don't understand it. They just repeated their original line.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 2 Dec 2016 - 09:13
Post #1236523

Indeed, ask them for a detailed breakdown

Complain to the CSA that you asked the CSA to investigate your complaint, not the company you are complaining about. State that the response is incoherent, rambling and fails to adequately address a single point raised, even making basic errors such as the amount under dispute. Ask, again, that THEY investigate your complaint.

Posted by: tonybaloney Fri, 2 Dec 2016 - 09:35
Post #1236536

I'll do that- thanks Nosferatu.
Am I right to assume that no action can be taken until this is fully investigated? I've got about 3 months until the 6 year limit, which by my reckoning is about another 3, maybe 4 letters.

Posted by: Lynnzer Fri, 2 Dec 2016 - 09:43
Post #1236541

Going right back to basics, you seem to say you were parked on a space which was the property of your client.
In what way? Are they leaseholders with allocated parking spaces?

Might be useful to find out and see if they can provide the appropriate wording from their lease that mentions parking.

Posted by: tonybaloney Fri, 2 Dec 2016 - 09:55
Post #1236549

That's right, Lynnzer. The problem is that they are the local branch of a nationwide chain, so it might be tricky to find a copy of their lease.
I did find out though, that the landowner looks like their company was wound up "if that's the right business term" before the ticket was issued. That should surely mean that VCS's contract was terminated aswell.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 2 Dec 2016 - 10:02
Post #1236552

Yes. If the company went into liquidation before the ticket was issued, as far as I am aware no contracts will be valid.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 2 Dec 2016 - 10:23
Post #1236561

QUOTE (tonybaloney @ Fri, 2 Dec 2016 - 09:35) *
Am I right to assume that no action can be taken until this is fully investigated?

No.

Posted by: emanresu Sat, 3 Dec 2016 - 06:10
Post #1236715

QUOTE
The problem is that they are the local branch of a nationwide chain,


Is this Mainstay?

In addition, they will have a standard contract so get a copy of that.

Posted by: Lynnzer Sat, 3 Dec 2016 - 08:07
Post #1236717

QUOTE (emanresu @ Sat, 3 Dec 2016 - 06:10) *
QUOTE
The problem is that they are the local branch of a nationwide chain,


Is this Mainstay?

In addition, they will have a standard contract so get a copy of that.

https://www.mainstaygroup.co.uk/downloader/bc9.pdf

Posted by: tonybaloney Sat, 3 Dec 2016 - 23:16
Post #1236850

Thanks emanresu and Lynnzer- I'm not sure what Mainstay is. Is it a landowner? My permit was for a banking group, which is why I think the lease may be tricky to get hold of.
I tried to get hold of the person that I used to deal with and I'm just waiting for him to get back to me.
I'll have a look at that agreement, Lynnzer and see if I get any inspiration for a response to BW and also a follow up complaint to the CSA.

Posted by: cabbyman Sun, 4 Dec 2016 - 06:21
Post #1236864

Are we talking about a residential or commercial property?

Posted by: tonybaloney Sun, 4 Dec 2016 - 19:25
Post #1236990

Hi Cabbyman- It's commercial. It's a few parking spots reserved for a couple of the local businesses. One of them was a client of ours and they used to give us a permit to use one of their spots when we were there for breakdowns and service calls.

Posted by: tonybaloney Tue, 6 Dec 2016 - 20:33
Post #1237809

I've just checked dates and realised that I've only got a couple of days left to respond to BW's last letter, before they update their records, to say how happy I am with their business practices huh.gif
I've just submitted a further complaint to the CSA, asking them to investigate BW directly and not refer it back to them.
This is the quick email that I've sent to BW:

Dear Sir,

I am writing in response to your letter, dated ....

As I feel you haven’t answered any of my issues or answered any of my questions satisfactorily, I am not accepting this a suitable conclusion to my complaint.
It is no surprise that you don’t think that you have done anything wrong and so, I have submitted a further complaint to the CSA asking them to look into the matter, themselves.

To be absolutely clear, I am not happy with your resolution and you are not to “update your records accordingly”.

I will await a response from the CSA, regarding this matter and may I also remind you, that a further complaint is still being investigated by the SRA into your handling of the claim.

Yours Faithfully

I'm not sure if it will have any effect, but I thought it was worth it, for the sake of another stamp to the CSA and a bit more grief for BW.


Posted by: tonybaloney Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 12:43
Post #1405531

Hello again,

20 Months after the last correspondence about this, I've now had another letter- identical to the first BW Legal letter. Is this some sort of new tactic by them or just another example of their incompetence?
It is now 7 years and 4 months since I got the original ticket.

Thanks again.

Posted by: ostell Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 12:52
Post #1405537

I think incompetence to its highest.

So now a quick letter stating that this alleged debt is statute barred and any further letters will be considered harassment. Court action would be vexatious and bound to fail and you would look to recovering your full costs from them for their unreasonable behaviour.

Posted by: tonybaloney Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 13:02
Post #1405538

Thanks Ostell- I thought that might be the case, but thought I'd better check in case something had changed.
It's tempting to see if I could drag it out by recycling my previous letters to them. A quick email might be easiest though biggrin.gif

Posted by: ostell Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 13:41
Post #1405546

Send it snail mail first class and get free certificate of posting from a post office. Just to show it was sent.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 13:55
Post #1405558

If they have email, send it email> Why waste a stamp!
I would point out that, as the claim has no chance of success, in the unlikely event a claim is issued by the CCBC, you will imediately for it to be struck out as it is statute barred and, as there is no costs protection as it would not be on any trakc, you would apply for your costs at the full Band D rate of £120 per hour.

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 16:08
Post #1405615

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 14:55) *
you would apply for your costs at the full Band D rate of £120 per hour.

Eh? Read CPR46.5 and PD46, 3.4.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 18:40
Post #1405674

Acknowledged! I couldn't recall the rates allowed.

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 21:36
Post #1405722

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 19:40) *
Acknowledged! I couldn't recall the rates allowed.

19 squid per, unless you’re a lawyer.

Posted by: tonybaloney Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 06:02
Post #1405782

Thanks again, everyone.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 09:40
Post #1405844

WE've had at least one case where £60 an hour was allowed, as the C was particularly unreasonable. Over on MSE from memory.

Posted by: tonybaloney Wed, 8 Aug 2018 - 17:31
Post #1406393

I'm sure that a year and a half past the Statute Barring date constitutes harassment and unreasonable behaviour biggrin.gif wink.gif

Posted by: tonybaloney Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 20:50
Post #1406783

Does this sound ok to everyone, before I send it?

In reference to your letter dated -------, this alleged debt is now statute barred and any attempt to contact me further, apart from to confirm the matter closed, will be considered harassment.
If there is any attempt at Court Action, I will immediately request for it to be struck out.
As there is no cost protection, I will make a claim for the maximum permissible amount under Practice Direction Part 46.

Yours Faithfully

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 08:26
Post #1406858

Maybe reference statute barred for 18 months?

Posted by: tonybaloney Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 13:12
Post #1406955

Will do- thanks

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)