Ludicrous PCN from Vehicle Control Services Ltd.

Ralph-y

The BBC recently ran two programs on private parking t
[EMAIL="watchdog@bbc.co.uk"]Watchdog@bbc.co.uk[/EMAIL]

https://www.facebook.com/DontGetDoneGetDom



they often do follow ups so it might be worth a letter/email


to let them know your views .........

Even consider the local papers Dail Mail as they may well run a story for you.

The government has just finished a consultation period , so your MP might be interested.



Ralph:cool:

HermanMunster

Thanks for all the advice. All 'evidence' saved. Yes, they do still put the clause in about not sharing it with anyone.

HO87 I'm sure you're right not to push the court issue. As nice as it would be to get it officially resolved it would still be a pain to work around.

Quite tempted by the watchdog/papers/MP idea though, just to expose further what a sham the whole thing is.

HermanMunster

An update: ignored all the debt collector letters and have now received what appears, looking through the forum, to be the standard BW legal letter. Have drafted this reply, amalgamated from some of the other responses I've found. Any thoughts most appreciated.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Your reference xxxxxx

I refer to your letter dated xxxxxx. The debt is denied, I have no intention of paying the money demanded by your client and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

No evidence has been provided that the vehicle xxxxxxx was parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit at the material time and location as alleged.

As keeper I believe that the signage was inadequate and any contract with the driver is denied.

Your client has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and therefore you have no cause of action against myself as keeper. In the absence of any reliance upon the POFA Schedule 4, it would be for VCS to establish who the driver was, and that a contract existed with that person. So far, no such evidence has been supplied.

There is no evidence your client has any proprietary interest in the land. Please provide a copy of the contract(s) authorising VCS to offer contracts for parking in their name and pursue unpaid parking charges including through court proceedings in their name on the material dates.

The amount charged bears no relation to the parking fee. Your debt collection costs of £54 are not appropriate. The amount is also excessive. I refer you to ParkingEye v Somerfield where debt collection costs of £60 were found to probably be a penalty by HHJ Heggarty.

Should it be your client’s intention to start court proceedings, they must provide a Letter Before Claim which complies with the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-action conduct. Please note that a failure and/or refusal to comply with the Practice Direction will result in a complaint being made to the court and an application for a stay of action and costs pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Practice Direction on non compliance and sanctions.

Furthermore, I wish to raise a formal complaint regarding your letter. You have stated in your letter that I failed to raise an appeal which is incorrect as an appeal was sent within the correct timeframe. Additionally, you are misrepresenting the legal process. A CCJ is not automatically entered following a successful hearing. The losing party has 14 days to make payment and if they do this has no effect on credit or employability.

Please follow your formal complaints procedure. This charge is disputed and you must now refer this matter back to your client and cease and desist all contact with me except to deal with my complaint. Failure to do so will result in a complaint to the Credit Services Association.

Yours faithfully

hoohoo

This is fine.
If you ignore BW legal, they file a claim.
If you cause them hassle (right hassle?) they usually give up

HermanMunster

Received this response:

http://imgur.com/yv6bfCM

Working on a reply now, which I will post soon. Love the reference to Elliott v Loake in response to a complaint that they are being misleading. Any thoughts most welcome.

Coupon-mad

Discussed a lot, here are 2 cases mentioning 'Elliot v Loake' (irrelevant drivel) on pepipoo this week:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106537

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107019&st=0

HTH

arthurx1234

I note from the replies all these firms give when they are questioned about their legal fees they trot out the same sentence i.e " the legal fees were detailed in the terms and conditions"
Well from the car park signs i have seen it just briefy mentions that lets say
" If the £100.00 is not paid within 28 days legal fees will be added"
My definition of detailed must be different to thiers.
The letters seem to imply that the signs described in detail why the legal fees are added
Must be just me being naive

Arthur Brexit

Herzlos

Furthermore, our legal fees of £54.00 are reasonable for a professional law firm dealing with this type of legal work

Indeed, but is it reasonable for BW who clearly aren't professionals and are using template letters?

I'd be inclined to confirm to them that the matter will not be settled out of court, unless they agree to drop the whole thing, and to issue a compliant LBA forthwith. Put them on the back foot and force them to either (a) take you to court or (b) make themselves look even less reasonable.

The_Deep

I would put them right on their reliance on Eliot v Loake, (copied to the SRA). This sort of drivel is intimidatory and unprofessional.


You have the opportunity here to do some real damage to this firm, please use it. The more hassle you cause them, the more likely they are to divest themselves of PPCs.As2w

Herzlos

Yeah I'd definitely complain to the SRA that BW legal are trying to imply that Eliot v Loake has some meaning here. You're concerned that either (1) they have no grasp on the law, or (2) are deliberately trying to mislead a lay person.