Another victim of PCN (from Excel, Peel Centre) fighting back.

Coupon-mad

No need to show the appeal in full; it just remains vitally important that you continue to respond (and be ready to defend this) as registered keeper.

To see how to reply to each letter, just search this forum and pepipoo for 'BW Legal'.

DO NOT be templated to pay the sum they are after, nor to make an offer.

IMHO Lamilad's case has shown that a defendant using Henry Greenslade's words/POPLA Annual report 2015 on 'Understanding Keeper Liability' should be able to win any Excel, VCS or CEL case (or Gladstones ones where the PPC also does not use POFA NTKs).

I am convinced that EVERY poster here has the potential/likelihood to win v Excel & VCS (and CEL etc.) and have been saying for a while that these cases are winnable by anyone (the Parking Prankster calls them 'hospital pass cases' and they are). Any poster here can win with our help and decent evidence submitted in good time. Henry Greenslade's words have been pushed a lot recently on the forums, for people to use more and take with them to their hearing (along with Schedule 4 and the Beavis sign, printed out).

It worked for Lamilad.

It's like having a barrister on your side in the room and even better, Henry Greenslade's a private parking law expert!

The poster called 'Juke Joint' was the only one who claims to have lost v Excel recently and the thread, let's just say, had questionable elements. I could be wrong but if I am, no doubt Juke Joint will of course be appealing his flawed decision, seeing as his Judge was the same one as Lamilad's and she appeared to err in law (about the POFA and keeper liability) and she will know it now. Skipton court (hopefully) might not go wrong again in any such cases in future as they will hopefully be looking for the claimant's evidence of complying with the POFA.

Lamilad's account was honest throughout and he used solid exhibits at his hearing this week.

Do not be scared that this might proceed. I still say we've never lost one because Juke Joint's thread was questioned and he disappeared and got no advice about his witness statement & exhibits. All he needed was Henry Greenslade on his side and if that poster does not come back and appeal the 'decision' then we can safely ignore it.

Rainman06

Thanks all. I'm in the middle of a forum read-a-thon looking for an appropriate response to BWL's initial threat-o-gram.
It's remarkable that Lamilad and Juke Joint's cases were so similar, even had the same Judge, but the outcomes were at polar opposites... I read JJ's before Lamilad's, which put me off. Got to the end of Lamilad's and now I'm all back on :-)

beamerguy

With everything that's going on at the moment with this merry duo, what they can say in court is now limited, their claim will be pretty much the same and now you have all the clues to win thanks to lami

Coupon-mad

There are doubts as to the 'other' Skipton case's legitimacy (or they missed a trick in understanding the POFA & explaining it) so it is best perhaps to ignore Juke Joint's thread now unless he appeals (which anyone would if it really went the way described, especially as he knows that Lamilad put that Judge straight now). Juke Joint if you are real then we will support you and assist with appeal wording because it's nigh on impossible to lose these cases IMHO, if a keeper is the defendant and raises 'keeper liability' and non-POFA compliance in a clear way.

These cases are such a car crash that it should be possible for any Tom, Dirk or Harry registered keeper to win.

Don't let a questionable thread put you off. Anyone could have posted that, and the Facebook offerings Lamilad mentioned. Some people have a different agenda than the rest of us here and some parking firms read forums.

I do wonder as to the timing of Excel getting Lamilad's pepipoo thread. Strange - one wonders how they knew about it when Excel haven't done that before. An interesting turn of events but it doesn't affect his win nor his likelihood of winning again.

Northlakes

Having read this thread with keen interest it further reinforces the advice of not appealing to the IPC.
The PPC has then to decide (with little evidence to go on) whether to be taken to the cleaners in costs by BW or Gladstones or a remote chance win at court again with Gladstones/BW costs.
Selling the debt to MIL looks now a much riskier option(even if there was a possibility of a winning 'commission').
You guys have done some terrific work.

pappa_golf

Northlakes wrote: »

Having read this thread with keen interest it further reinforces the advice of not appealing to the IPC.
The PPC has then to decide (with little evidence to go on) whether to be taken to the cleaners in costs by Gladstones or a remote chance win at court again with Gladstones costs.
Selling the debt to MIL looks now a much riskier option(even if there was a possibility of a winning 'commission').
You guys have done some terrific work.

selling the debt on may very well get them a £1 , but in reality it could (and will) cost them in the region of £750 after court , for breaking the DPA , at this point the DVLA and indeed the BPA/IPC would have no other option but ti award sanction points , swiftly followed by the DVLA revoking their KODOE agreement

Rainman06

Could someone please give this response to BW a once over to see if it's ok?

Dear Sir/Madam

I will not be paying the Balance Due as I deny responsibility for this charge. Any legal action that is taken against me will be robustly defended in court.

Your Client has failed to identify the driver and their 'reasonable assumption' that I, as the registered keeper was the driver at the time in question has no legal standing. I am under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to name the driver, and Your Client cannot lawfully hold me liable for this charge as the registered keeper, since they have failed to comply with PoFA 2012 as they are required to do. I draw your attention to Paragraph 9(4)(b) of PoFA which states “The notice to keeper must be given by sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.” The relevant period being the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The issue date of the PCN is 11/07/16 and the alleged contravention date is 22/06/16.

Furthermore, with neither myself nor any of the people who drive my car having had any recollection of parking in a pay and display car park without purchasing a ticket on the date in question, upon receiving the PCN I searched for the car park in question online and instantly saw that it is infamous as a 'honey trap' for unaware drivers being charged for parking contraventions. The signs at the car park fail in the 'Large Lettering' requirement and as such as such any contract is denied.

I hasten to point out that in your letter you state that I “have failed to raise an appeal within 28 days from the date of the PCN”. This is untrue; an appeal was sent within the time limit and I have proof of this. If you continue to pursue me on any grounds that are untrue such as this again I will report you to the SRA.

I further point out that the £54 legal costs that you are seeking are excessive and inappropriate. If you continue to pursue me for this I will report you to the SRA.

I now consider this matter closed. However, if Your Client does wish to proceed with a claim against me, they must provide a Letter Before Claim which complies with the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-action conduct.

Regards

Umkomaas

The signs at the car park fail in the 'Large Lettering' requirement and as such as such any contract is denied.

'As such' x 2

If you continue to pursue me for this I will report you to the SRA.

Don't threaten it, just do it. Threatening won't stop them in their tracks, and it means it will take another letter from them before you will be reporting it. They may think you are bluffing in any case.

I'd change it to 'As you have chosen to pursue me without cause, I am reporting this to the SRA for their attention'.

Coupon-mad

I would not even recognise it as a debt or 'balance due'. Call it 'unwarranted demand' or something.

beamerguy

As Umkomaas clearly states, don't threaten them, it's water off a ducks back with this lot. REPORT THEM TO THE SRA without further delay.