Another one about B W Legal

Herzlos · 29 September 2016 at 2:18PM

If for some reason the judge doesn't buy that you were 3000 miles away, you're generating the "reasonable assumption" you were the driver, since by your own admission you are the only one who could be the driver. That said, your evidence for being in another country should be pretty convincing anyway.

It makes no real difference to your case if you are the only one allowed to drive the vehicle or not - it wasn't the company and it wasn't you, therefore neither you or the company can be held liable.

Edit: I also suspect they've just got the date wrong (you're dealing with incompetents) but you can only defend what they are claiming, and they are claiming it was on that date. I'm not sure what the deal would be regarding them bringing a later claim with a corrected date, but I don't think they'd be stupid enough to do that.

Coupon-mad · 29 September 2016 at 2:20PM

True. Keep it simple.

The_Painter · 29 September 2016 at 2:38PM

CM Thank you very much. I understand all that you say and I'll redraft in the morning. I'll post it back up here and if you are online and have a chance to read before I submit it I would be forever grateful

The_Painter · 29 September 2016 at 2:50PM

Thanks Herzlos
Not sure on the date. As I said I've not been to Sheffield so if someone did it would have to have happened while I was away.
I'll redraft. It says on the NtK that photographic evidence is held on file so should I ask for that. I don't know if it was a ticket or a camera but i'm thinking that might help me because if it was a camera then I may have more proof to the fact I was not driving.

Coupon-mad · 29 September 2016 at 2:59PM

ANPR cameras don't show faces (or names) but at least you are certain this wasn't you.

The_Painter · 29 September 2016 at 3:04PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I am a bit concerned that maybe the date of the parking event was earlier (before you went away) and BW Legal have stated the date of the Notice in the particulars? Does it actually state 'date of parking event'?

Someone drove that vehicle there...highly unlikely not, unless they got the VRN wrong.

It says on the NtK contravention date xx/xx/2015 so am assuming they have the date right. As I've just replied to Herzlos it couldn't really be a wrong date thing because I've not been to Sheffield recently. They'd have had to get the year wrong.

Herzlos · 29 September 2016 at 3:10PM

I wouldn't put it past them to get the year wrong.

The_Painter · 30 September 2016 at 12:12PM

Ok, I've had another go. If anyone has time to check I would be grateful. I am filing this in a couple of hours. Thanks in advance

Case No xxxxx

It is admitted that the Defendant is the keeper of the vehicle in question. The registered keeper is a company that I own and I have sole use of the vehicle

However the claimant has no cause of action against the defendant on the following grounds:-

1) The Defendant was the Keeper but was not the driver. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not
been complied with, so there is no possibility of 'keeper liability' in law. A keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 which VCS did not.

(i) The Claimant (incorrectly) states they may pursue the keeper 'on the assumption' that they were the driver. In this instance no assumptions can be made as the Defendant can prove his whereabouts on the date the alleged contract was formed. I was on holiday in the Canary Islands and have receipts to show this.

(ii) This is the position on private land according to the applicable law, as confirmed by the experienced PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister Henry Michael Greenslade who confirmed in 2015:

''Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.

Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver...If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.

2) The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.

3) The Claimant solicitor BW Legal have informed me they will rely in court on the case Parking Eye v Beavis. Having now read about this case - despite it being about a 'parking charge' - I can state that it has absolutely no relevance to this dispute at all.
(i) The most obvious being Beavis was the driver. I was not driving; was not in the Country. I cannot be held liable.

(ii) Also, the Supreme Court decision turned on the 'complex' commercial justification for that charge which arose after a free licence to park for two hours. Not so at this location it seems, although the facts are vague, it appears the Claimant is suggesting a lack of displayed permit or P&D ticket. These are ordinary financial transactions (or trespass, depending upon the situation) not the complex set of circumstances cited in the Beavis case which turned on facts relating to that location and charge alone.

(iii) The registered keeper is a company that I own and cannot have been the driver of the vehicle since it is not a person.

(iv) Further, the signage was deemed adequate (with unusually prominent large lettering for the parking charge) in that case, unlike overly-wordy VCS signage where any charge is routinely (and I believe deliberately) hidden in small print unsuited to an outdoor sign.

4) Although at this time I am unaware where the vehicle was actually parked, I believe the claimant has a well known track record of having insufficient signage to form a contract, or any legal rights to the property at all. if the claimant wishes to continue with this unfounded claim I will require:

(i) Strict evidence of adequate signage on the day in question. Also as according to letters received this incident happened at 9pm in January I will also require proof of adequate illumination of said signs.

(ii) The proper claimant is the landholder so absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

(iii) The claimant states they have supporting photographic evidence, I would like them to produce this, as at the moment I am questioning whether this incident ever happened at all.

It is with all the above points in mind that I ask the Court to strike out this claim as having no prospects of success, since no contract ever existed between the Defendant and the Claimant.The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

Coupon-mad · 30 September 2016 at 2:53PM

You need speech marks at the end of Henry's second paragraph:

...keeper liability does not generally pass.''

And in your first line I still agree with Herzlos and would not have 'and I have sole use of the vehicle' because they could use that against you, if for instance they later amend the particulars if they had the date wrong:

If for some reason the judge doesn't buy that you were 3000 miles away, you're generating the "reasonable assumption" you were the driver, since by your own admission you are the only one who could be the driver.

Have you got a point about VCS not being the landowner in there? I didn't see it and normally we demand evidence of a contract allowing the PPC to make contracts and sue in their own name, since they are not in possession.

Also as per Xanthanan's example, I'd include objections to BW Legal filing robo-claims in their thousands, with no scrutiny or even checking for a cause of action.

Ne5555 · 12 October 2016 at 2:00PM

Hi. just jumping in becuse I didnt want to open up new thread.

I did receive court claim and I acknowledged, now preparing my defence.

VCS has taken me to court on 2 tickets.26/04/2015 and 14/05/2016.

I can prove that I was not the driver at 14/05/2016 but I cant prove that I was not the driver at 26/04/2015.
I am just preparing my defence.
as registered keeper they have taken me to court.
I remember receiving one of the PCN with picture on it(Completely different person than me)
I dont remember receiving the other one. Because it is more than 18 months I cant find details whereabouts I was at the time.

How should I prepare my defence?
I just need help but couldnt find a draft to write at searching forums(looking for the last 3 days everywhere)
Thanks in advance

Another one about B W Legal

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free