Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • justice17
    • By justice17 2nd Jun 17, 10:18 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 10Thanks
    justice17
    2012 vcs bw leagal
    • #1
    • 2nd Jun 17, 10:18 PM
    2012 vcs bw leagal 2nd Jun 17 at 10:18 PM
    Good evening all. This is a thread made after hours of searching through the stickies and being overwhelmed with the wealth of information that has been shared on this site.

    Today I received a letter from VCS and BW Legal in regards to an unpaid PCN from 11.04.2012!!

    The letter states that my outstanding balance of £174 has been passed onto BW Legal for collection and if payment is not received within 16 days then they will commence legal proceedings.

    My research has informed me that I do need to respond to this letter as seeing Mad hatters thread BW Legal are likely to start court proceedings.

    I am completely unaware of this PNC and have moved home 4 times since 2012 and at a loss as to why they have only sent me this letter now demanding payment. I was the registered keeper at that time but can't remember receiving any letters regarding this parking fine. The letter states that the PNC was issued for failing to display a valid ticket??

    If somebody could be so kind as to point me in the right direction of which thread is most useful for me to begin to challenge this it would be greatly appreciated.

    Many thanks in advance!!
Page 2
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 14th Jun 17, 10:54 PM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 1,744 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I agree. Work in an additional para to my letter. Quote 3 cases from Parking Prankster and say you can provide numerous other examples (include VCS and Excel cases as the companies are under common ownership.

    Also worth adding "please do not reply with a claim that [AJ Films case ref] has any relevance - you will be aware from this week's appeal that such argument is nothing more than a dead duck. ". I don't know if the top of my head who the PPC was, was it Excel or VCS?

    If you fight hard now they may be discouraged from chasing a 5 yr old pcn.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 15th Jun 17, 2:24 PM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 1,744 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    C9DP7T5D - VCS V HALL 12.6.17:
    Heard in Blackwood - DJ rejected Elliot v Loake and AJH Films and ordered costs of c£550 against VCS (BW Legal acting)




    M17X062 - Excel Parking Services Limited vs Smith, 8.6.17:
    HHJ Smith sitting on an appeal in Stockport County Court (and Excel is under same ownership as VCS, plus BW Legal acted) - found that AJH Films did not apply in non-employee scenarios


    You will find plenty of others on Parking Prankster's blog




    • justice17
    • By justice17 15th Jun 17, 9:58 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    justice17
    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
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 17, 10:39 PM
    • 48,965 Posts
    • 62,457 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Excel were in fact banned in 2012 by the DVLA for lying 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.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • justice17
    • By justice17 15th Jun 17, 11:00 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    justice17
    Excel were in fact banned in 2012 by the DVLA for lying 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.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I've amended that line, apart from that is it good enough to send via email Coupon-Mad?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 17, 11:25 PM
    • 48,965 Posts
    • 62,457 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would just change the word 'implore' (who wants to beg this scummy bunch of money-grabbing leaches?):

    If you were planning on challenging this with quoting AJH firms, I implore suggest that you do not not to waste your time or mine, as I am fully aware of numerous cases where they have been rejected, for example:
    Apart from that, yes it looks good to go.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • justice17
    • By justice17 16th Jun 17, 7:24 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    justice17
    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.
    • justice17
    • By justice17 24th Jun 17, 1:43 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    justice17
    Update:

    Today I woke up to a letter from BWLegal

    The have stated that the note my position in relation to EVL, however, maintain their position in relation to the relevance of the case.

    As i have noted harassement they feel obliged to point out that under S1(3)(c) of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 they believe they have been entirely reasonable and in no way reaches the high threshold of harassment.

    They have now requested evidence from their client and will revert back in due course...


    Is there anything I need to do to prep for their response or just wait to see what evidence they produce??
    Last edited by justice17; 24-06-2017 at 1:44 PM. Reason: Missed something out
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 24th Jun 17, 2:02 PM
    • 5,656 Posts
    • 7,306 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Update:

    Today I woke up to a letter from BWLegal

    The have stated that the note my position in relation to EVL, however, maintain their position in relation to the relevance of the case.

    As i have noted harassement they feel obliged to point out that under S1(3)(c) of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 they believe they have been entirely reasonable and in no way reaches the high threshold of harassment.

    They have now requested evidence from their client and will revert back in due course...


    Is there anything I need to do to prep for their response or just wait to see what evidence they produce??
    Originally posted by justice17
    Very difficult to understand the mentality of BWLegal, do they not understand the english language especially when the courts are telling them ....

    Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH films not relevant

    From the parking prankster

    Excel Parking Services Ltd v Mrs. Lynzi Evans
    Judge: DJ McKay
    Claim no: C8DP79CC in the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre.
    Legal representative of BW Legal: Mr Singh

    Excel lose in Cardiff. Judge explains why Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH films not relevant

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/excel-lose-in-cardiff-judge-explains.html

    A case to be referred to in court should it go that far

    What they refer to is not relevant but referring the above to a judge
    is relevant and up to date.

    Why on earth do these parking companies use BWLegal ????
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 24th Jun 17, 2:11 PM
    • 14,044 Posts
    • 22,061 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Maybe their position on EvL, in sharp contrast to that of a number of judges, should be the subject of a complaint to the SRA. They are surely misleading people!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 24th Jun 17, 2:16 PM
    • 5,656 Posts
    • 7,306 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Maybe their position on EvL, in sharp contrast to that of a number of judges, should be the subject of a complaint to the SRA. They are surely misleading people!
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    With a copy to Trading Standards
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,138Posts Today

8,696Users online

Martin's Twitter