2012 vcs bw leagal

Thanks for the replies and pointers Guy's, it spun my head for a minute or two, loads of info to take in and took me a while to decipher it all and draft something.. But.. Prep'd this....

Thanks again Lamilad, Coupon-Mad, Wammo, and LoadsofChildren (for the meat on the bones).

If there is anything else I can add or amend please let me know.. I'm going to send it tomorrow after work so i can relax and enjoy the weekend


Dear Sirs

Thank you for your response to my correspondence, your assessment of the DPA is noted but is rejected as entirely inaccurate.

The "parking event" is non-POFA case and one which occurred over five years ago. Firstly due to the time frame I cannot be expected to recall who was driving the car. Nor am I obliged by any precedent or enactment to identify the driver.
Secondly, may I bring to your attention that it is known that VCS and Excel are owned by the same person and Excel were in fact banned in 2012 by the DVLA for lying that a keeper could be liable and/or was responsible for some sort of obligation to name the driver.
With this in mind, does your client VCS; seriously think they can now allege that registered keepers in pre-POFA cases had such obligations, knowing that the DVLA banned Excel for saying exactly that?

In regards to the case of Elliott v Loake which you quoted in your correspondence, your firm knows well that it is not applicable. Your assertion that it is precedent for an automatic presumption that I was the driver of the vehicle, merely because I was its registered keeper, which it is for me to rebut, is again wholly inaccurate - a fact which both you and your client must know since you have been informed as such in other similar claims and by a number of different members of the judiciary.
In fact, the Elliott v Loake was a criminal case in which there was a finding that the keeper was driving after the court heard overwhelming forensic and witness evidence to this effect. The burden of proof in this matter lies with the claimant, as it does in every claim. There is absolutely nothing unique about a private parking charge which reverses this burden.
I am also aware that the Elliott v Loake case relied on forensic data which proved who the driver was in that instance. Therefore if the Elliott v Loake case is the base on which you are planning on perusing this matter, then I demand to know how you managed to obtain forensic details of the driver and how you have proven that it was the registered keeper.
This said, If have you have forensic evidence I believe this to be a gross intrusion of one’s privacy and a matter for Information Commissioner to be involved in as your client would be processing highly confidential data that they have no right to have.
Furthermore I also bring to your attention my awareness of number of case’s where the Elliott v Loake case has been dismissed for being completely irrelevant and several instances where the claimant has been reprimanded for bring a matter such as this one before a judge.
I therefore kindly ask you to quote one claim other than the Elliot v Loake case where a judge has accepted it as relevant.
If you were planning on challenging this with quoting AJH firms, I implore you not to waste your time as I am fully aware of numerous cases where they have been rejected, for example:
C9DP7T5D - VCS V HALL 12.6.17: The case was heard in Blackwood where a district judge rejected Elliot v Loake and AJH Films and ordered costs of £550 against VCS.

Put simply, your client has no viable claim to bring against me. Therefore, please desist from writing to me further, because such action is nothing more than harassment.

If your client persists, then please supply me with any evidence that I was driving the vehicle on the relevant date, together with all information on which your client will rely on proving its claim - including but not limited to the landowner contract, the signage displayed on the land in April 2012, a plan showing where such signage was displayed, the size and height of the signs, a plan showing where the vehicle was parked and copies of all photographs taken of the vehicle, along with a copy of the original PCN.

This is core information which your client is obliged to supply pursuant to paragraphs 6(a) and (c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Excel were in fact banned in 2012 by the DVLA for [STRIKE]lying[/STRIKE] misleading consumers about liability, by suggesting that a keeper could be liable and/or was responsible for some sort of obligation to name the driver.

I've amended that line, apart from that is it good enough to send via email Coupon-Mad?

Very Ture Coupon-Mad, a poor word choice begging them for wasting my time and everyone else's on here is the last thing I should be doing.

I should probably be asking them to compensate us for the harassment and inconvenience !!!

The second response has been drafted and sent !! Now off to work.

Have a lovely day and weekend people, and I will be back once the Leaches return.

Thanks again for all your support.