Excel PCN from 2013, new letter from BW Legal- help!

LoveNorfolk

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Last time I complained to the CSA at the same time as sending the last letter, then complaining to the SRA on response from the CSA and BW who said they'd done nothing wrong. I was thinking same again this time, I probably won't change the letters that much as I hope they take every complaint seriously? I am also going to look into the Financial Conduct Authority to see if a complaint can be made there.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This is what I have so far, needs tweeking a bit further (I've changed it a bit from the original send last time), but any input gratefully received.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Dear Sir/Madam,

I reply to your letter dated XXXXX

First and foremost please note that the alleged contravention is not only denied but laughable. Apparently the available signs were 8 feet plus off the ground and nigh on impossible to read due to this height and small font, and with regards to contraventions simply stated what contraventions could result in a PCN. Initially the alleged contravention was cited as causing an obstruction and was swiftly changed on subsequent correspondence as it was obvious this would be disproved by any photographic evidence.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]To your client's error, upon changing the contravention to 'parked in a restricted area of the car park', apparently no restricted areas were detailed upon their signs and no such area was identified by way of signage within the area near the vehicle, or by way of hatched areas or signage upon the floor of the car park, this would also be apparent on any photographic evidence. It has been noted that since this alleged contravention has occurred, areas within this car park have been provided with 'no parking at any time' signs in some areas, but not where this alleged contravention took place.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This begs the question on how your client can claim a particular area is 'restricted' without actually making this area known. A user of this car park cannot enter in a contract with your client without the full and proper information that allows them to agree to your client's 'terms and conditions', by hiding this information it would appear your client is deliberately attempting to mislead users in order to issue a PCN. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It would be insightful to see the figures of PCN's issued within the car park managed by your client that fall within this category, as with no attempt being made to prevent vehicles parking in that area, make users aware it isn't permitted, or even make users aware which areas of the car park are 'restricted', despite it being listed as a contravention on the signs, it appears your client is carrying out entrapment of car park users for their personal gain.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Secondly, your client Excel Parking certainly knows that their notice to keeper is non-compliant with POFA 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 8. This states “liability for the parking charge notice (PCN) lies with the driver/hirer of the vehicle.” As such, no keeper liability can be formed if you were unsuccessful in identifying the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. Please don't embarrass yourselves and attempt to quote Elliot V Loake as this was a criminal matter with forensic evidence, that has no bearing on this matter, nor CPS v AJH Films, which is only applicable in an employee/employer situation. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The notice to keeper denotes the maximum 'balance' (£100) that can be recovered, and as the supposed £54 initial legal costs were not applied at the time of this notice being served, they cannot be added to the 'unpaid balance.' Yourselves as a representitve on behalf of your client should be aware of this. Please refer to ParkingEye v Somerfield, in which debt collection costs of £60 were found to probably be a penalty by HHJ Heggarty.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I must bring to your attention that in your letter you state that “should we successfully obtain a CCJ this may have effect on your future creditworthiness and employability”. This is a misrepresentation of the legal process, as should you be successful at a hearing, the losing party has 14 days to make payment or arrange a payment plan and as such this does not automatically obtain a CCJ against the losing party nor effect creditworthiness nor employability. This is a poor attempt on scaremongering on your behalf.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
As I dispute this charge and consider this matter now closed, I politely request that you do not contact me further and refer it back to your client Excel Parking. Harassment from your client and yourselves for this length of time is nothing short of shameful.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Should further correspondence be forthcoming I will be left with no choice to report yourselves, BW Legal, to the SRA (Solicitors' Regulatory Authority) about this matter and for the misleading information contained within this letter. I am aware that MP Stephen Doughty made such a complaint about your conduct to the SRA also in February this year. A complaint has been made to the CSA (Credit Services Association) for this same reason.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

nosferatu1001

One month
You cannot arrange a payment plan, it has to be paid in full.
A CCJ *is* issued at the time of judgement, it is just *removed* if paid within 1 month.

LoveNorfolk

Thanks for that, I'll change that bit. Any other things I might add to this? I don't want to put too much detail same as last time, I'm saving anything I think would be useful for court for if it comes to that.

LoveNorfolk

So I have reworded that part about the CCJ and changed this paragraph:


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Secondly, your client Excel Parking certainly knows that their notice to keeper is non-compliant with POFA 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 8. This states “liability for the parking charge notice (PCN) lies with the driver/hirer of the vehicle.” As such, no keeper liability can be formed if you were unsuccessful in identifying the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention as t[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]here is no [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]assumption in law that the registered keeper is also the driver of the vehicle. [/FONT]Please don't embarrass yourselves and attempt to quote Elliot V Loake as this was a criminal matter with forensic evidence, that has no bearing on this matter, nor CPS v AJH Films, which is only applicable in an employee/employer situation. [/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Excel have never used POFA wording and that NTK will have been no different.