PCN with an none completed Date on it

Coupon-mad

OMG that is the very best photo of an obscured sign I have ever seen - you must show this to the Parking Prankster for him to blog about!

I would reply with something like:



Dear BW Legal,

I am writing to you today with regards to the Final Notice I have received from you today in the post.

I would like to point you to the letter I received from you dated 29th June 2016, with the reference VCS/Txxxxx, where the last paragraph reads:

“However, we note that you have requested photographic evidence of signage containing the Terms and Conditions for parking within the Car Park, and we confirm that we have now requested this from our client.

We have placed your account on hold whilst we await this evidence, and we will revert to you in due course”

Notwithstanding the fact that, like any other private parking ticket victim I have no 'account' with VCS or BW Legal, as of yet - today's date is 25/10/2016 - I am yet to receive the requested photographic evidence from your client, nor from yourselves. In an effort to assist and to resolve this spurious charge dispute once and for all, I have been down to the car park and I took the following picture of the sign as it is currently:

https://postimg.org/image/u2csodutx/

I have noticed that your reference has changed slightly, 'LIT' instead of 'VCS', so I would suggest that the Litigation Team should contact your Collections Team and discuss this signage evidence with them. If you were shaping up for one of your infamous robo-claims, might I suggest you stop and file the matter once and for all, because your client has no cause of action and no demonstrable contract formed by a sign which seems to be routinely covered in ivy.

As Mr Beavis was told 'all he needed was a watch' may I respectfully suggest you tell your client 'all they needed were some secateurs'.

yours faithfully,



me

Fruitcake

I love the foliage! :rotfl:

I suggest you move a small portion of it and take another picky, just to show that there is in fact a sign underneath it. Make sure you put the foliage back as you found it afterwards.

Fruitcake

Coupon-Mad, may I respectfully suggest that you amend Post 2 of the Newbies thread such that it accurately reflects the more up to date abbreviation PPC, meaning Private Pruning Company. :rotfl:

q2uantum

Fruitcake wrote: »

I love the foliage! :rotfl:

I suggest you move a small portion of it and take another picky, just to show that there is in fact a sign underneath it. Make sure you put the foliage back as you found it afterwards.

I will get the new picture tomorrow - its my sisters works car park so she is on the case when she goes tomorrow :-)

q2uantum

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OMG that is the very best photo of an obscured sign I have ever seen - you must show this to the Parking Prankster for him to blog about!

I would reply with something like:



Dear BW Legal,

I am writing to you today with regards to the Final Notice I have received from you today in the post.

I would like to point you to the letter I received from you dated 29th June 2016, with the reference VCS/Txxxxx, where the last paragraph reads:

“However, we note that you have requested photographic evidence of signage containing the Terms and Conditions for parking within the Car Park, and we confirm that we have now requested this from our client.

We have placed your account on hold whilst we await this evidence, and we will revert to you in due course”

Notwithstanding the fact that, like any other private parking ticket victim I have no 'account' with VCS or BW Legal, as of yet - today's date is 25/10/2016 - I am yet to receive the requested photographic evidence from your client, nor from yourselves. In an effort to assist and to resolve this spurious charge dispute once and for all, I have been down to the car park and I took the following picture of the sign as it is currently:

https://postimg.org/image/u2csodutx/

I have noticed that your reference has changed slightly, 'LIT' instead of 'VCS', so I would suggest that the Litigation Team should contact your Collections Team and discuss this signage evidence with them. If you were shaping up for one of your infamous robo-claims, might I suggest you stop and file the matter once and for all, because your client has no cause of action and no demonstrable contract formed by a sign which seems to be routinely covered in ivy.

As Mr Beavis was told 'all he needed was a watch' may I respectfully suggest you tell your client 'all they needed were some secateurs'.

yours faithfully,



me

Hi Coupon-Mad

Thanks for the reply again, would you really submit the current photo of the sign at this point or save until a court date if it comes to that?

What about the picture of the sign on the offence date with the fine amount missing? Would you submit that now or wait?

Ive message parking prankster to see if he is interested in the photo for his blog

Thanks for your help so far in this

q2

Coupon-mad

What about the picture of the sign on the offence date with the fine amount missing? Would you submit that now or wait?

Oooh, add that as well as ask them to take their pick of the photos, which one does their Litigation team seriously believe creates a contract?

This can be a little sarky, I suggest, hence the flippant ending!

I would show your hand NOW to see this off. It is laughable. I've circulated it in a group email already so more people see it.

q2uantum

Hi Coupon-Mad,

Unfortunately it seems that in the car park there are 4 other signs that are not covered in foliage it seems, just the one in the picture. There are only about 20 parking spaces!

Shall I just send the letter with my two pictures anyway?

Coupon-mad

Yes indeedy. There were always bound to be other signs but this calls into question the upkeep of the car park signs in general which might have ALL been obscured that day. That's for them to prove, not you.

q2uantum

Hi Coupon-Mad,

Ok next part of the saga.

Today I have received a letter from bwlegal dated 21st November and it states this:

We write in reference of the above matter and our recent correspondence.

Please find enclosed a copy of our letter dated 7th September where we enclosed photographic evidence of your vehicle on the date of the contravention, the Car Park, your appeal and Our Clients response, the PCN and the signage.

We further enclosed these documents for your information

Pleas contact us within 7 days of this letter to discuss payment o the Balance. Should we not hear from you within the timeframe requested, we will seek instructions from Our Client to issue County Court proceedings against you

Yours faithfully

BW Legal

Enclosed with the letter was a letter dated 7th September (which I never received) saying they had enclosed the photographic evidence of the contravention, car park signs, copy of penalty notice and correspondence relating to the contravention.

There are pictures of the car dated 17/01/2015 (5 of these), A photocopy of a very tatty and basically unreadable PCN notice, a copy of a tatty patrol officers statement (just about readable), a copy of my original challenge reply to the PCN, a copy of a couple of replies from them (basic we are not accepting your complaint etc).

They have also included photos of the signs in the car park but these are dated March 3rd 2015 - 2 months after the photos of the car.

I will try and get copies of these up on here if you need to see them.

So basically, where do I go next with my reply?

Personally I think they are going to take it to court :-(

Thanks

q2

Coupon-mad

Personally I think they are going to take it to court :-(

If they do, then take heart, be confident.

MSE forum-assisted defences v BW Legal have not lost (I don't count one single very odd thread recently which was not believable and showed no claim number despite us asking, then along came a genuine MSEer who of course won his case at the same court straight after!).

Anyway, yes, we will need to see those alleged 2015 signage pics please. Signage terms are vital to look at, in case a defence is needed later on (don't worry!).

You can reply and say your position is unchanged, you are not liable and the evidence produced (which was never sent in September) is woeful.