VCS PCN - Help Needed

Dee140157

That's the idea. Come back if you get an official letter, but not every time you get a DRP letter as that is pointless. There are enough threads with examples to know what to ignore!

AB_Express

Been a while since I have heard anything on my PCN, almost 18 months, got a letter from BW Legal yesterday. Followed the advice on here I have seen in other posts and sent them an email, the one posted by hoohoo.

The_Deep

... and they make reference to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis & Wardley [2014]

I do not believe it, Beavis v PE and this case could not be further apart. Tell them to take you to court where you will cite cases where CCJs have disallowed claims where breakdowns have occurred.

catfunt

There was a case on here where that happened - I can't find it for now but if I do I'll post a link. Cant remember who the PPC was now.

Redx

probably this one blogged by prankster (also VCS)

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/vcs-spanked-in-court-as-motorist-and.html

AB_Express

Thanks for the link.

AB_Express

So, BW Legal acknowledged my email response to their first letter via email. They have now sent a reply by letter with a more detailed response to the email (hoohoo's template) I sent. They quote the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis bit in this letter and want payment in full within 7 days. They go on to say we will not be corresponding with me any further and then go on to say look forward to hearing from you.

I believe these guys are quite new on the scene and there aren't many posts about them yet. Do I respond again to this letter or as they have said they wont be corresponding with me any further do I wait for VCS to contact me?

As always, any help is much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

I would do a bit of email tennis seeing as there's no stamp needed and you can then prove you responded if the matter proceeds any further. What is BW Legal's email address please, you say they acknowledged by email first? It may help others to know.

Thank them for bringing up the Beavis case seeing as it supports your side as registered keeper of the car, because there was no contract/breach of any licence to park possible in an alleged 'no stopping zone'. Not that the driver feels it was adequately signed as a no stopping zone due to a distinct lack of prominent lines & signs - and in any case the driver only stopped to inspect an oil leak which is not parking but was an emergency beyond the driver's control.

Regardless of the details, as keeper you cannot be held liable because VCS do not use POFA wording in their Notice to Keeper letters. Further, the Beavis case made it clear that in a case of disallowed parking (which can only fall under the tort of trespass, absent any 'contract') ParkingEye would have been unable to pursue any sum at all as they were not in possession of the land.

Say you will certainly use the Beavis judgment comments about trespass in your favour - as well as the POFA 2012 - if they proceed to court but, as VCS cannot hold keepers liable, you consider this entire contact to be harassment of a party not legally liable.

Tell them to put up or shut up.

dazster

AB_Express wrote: »

They go on to say we will not be corresponding with me any further

Wonderful! That'll go down like a cup of cold sick with the judge in the vanishingly small eventuality of this ever becoming a court claim!

AB_Express

Email address is VCS@bwlegal.co.uk