DRP Notice of intended court action

Coupon-mad

Looby78 wrote: »

Hi again.

I sent a reply as in post number 16 on 8th January.I got a reply from BW Legal dated 16th January stating they hadn't had a reply. However today I've had another letter from BW in response to the letter I sent:


''We refer to the above matter and your recent correspondence.

Our Client is seeking recovery of the PCN recovery costs n the sum of £54. We refer you to the bottom of the Tariff Board, which states, '[the Claimant} will be entitled to take legal proceeding to recover any outstanding charges, including interest and any addition costs incurred.'

We confirm Our Client elects to rely on the court of appeal ruling in Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798, 'that does not alter the fact that it remains a contractual entitlement which the court will enforce subject to its equitable power to disallow unreasonable expenses. There is nothing in the rule making powers in respect of the CPR which enable the rules to exclude or override that contractual entitlement and I therefore agree with Arden LJ that the judge had jurisdiction to assess the costs free from any restraints imposed by CPR 27.14. ''

Dear BW Legal,

PCN ref xxxxxx (VCS Ltd)

It is noted with disdain that you are now dredging up another irrelevant piece of case law in Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798. Is your desperate attempt at relying on the criminal case of Elliot v Loake no longer fooling Judges or are you trying to rely upon both?

The sum you are demanding seems to have been plucked from thin air and I assert the £54 figure would not have appeared on the signs and if it was there, it was buried in small print and not bound to have been seen. My case can be fully distinguished from Kumari which was about contractual fees supported by lease terms, not random 'costs' bolted on afterwards to an already significantly inflated 'parking charge' which bears no relation to any tariff displayed at the location.

CPR 27.14 certainly disallows your thinly-veiled attempt at double recovery.

My case can also be fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which helpfully confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in less complex private parking charge cases, such as those 'ordinary financial transaction' cases with a quantifiable tariff. Regarding added costs, I remind you that in Beavis, £85 was the only sum sought, which was held in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court as an amount set high enough to more than cover the costs of ParkingEye’s fully-automated and generic business model.

Further, this purported claim appears to arise over an alleged non-payment of a tariff, disproved immediately in an appeal proving that the driver did pay and display and did not contravene any terms.

VCS - being owned by ex-clamper of 'Captain Clampit' infamy, Simon Renshaw-Smith - will recall that it was not long ago (2012) that rogue clampers used to reportedly rock cars to dislodge permits. However, I would not presume to suggest this is the case in this instance and VCS (knowing from our appeal that the tariff ticket was indisputably paid and displayed when the driver parked) should extend the driver the same courtesy. Alleging blame for an incident most likely caused by adverse weather conditions 'force majeure' is a situation which cannot be held to be the fault of one or other party, remains beyond anyone's control after the car is parked and left and which cannot give rise to a penalty for the profit of one party or the other.

To continue to pursue this matter offends against the penalty rule, is unreasonable and vexatious and should I prevail when defending a claim I will seek my own costs under the same Civil Procedure Rule you are trying to blind me with in your letter.

yours faithfully,

Looby78

I've got two photos of the signs at the car park. One is really old and mentions clamping, towing etc, and has parts covered with gaffa tape, The others (of which there are six) mention a parking charge of £100 reducing to £60 is paid within 14 days of the PCN being issued. No mention of £54 though.

Coupon-mad

I would add that paragraph to the letter/email just for good measure. Respond every time and be robust, which I why I wrote that the way I did. Shows VCS they will not get an easy ride in court and that certain things will be drawn to the Judge's attention.

The more we do this with robust responses mentioning stuff that VCS or Excel don't want raised, the more Judges will remember previous cases and not be so keen to believe the claimant is the innocent party. Judges need to know this is often 'the clamper brigade' with suits on.

I really meant it when I wrote that bit about clampers rocking cars - they did. So how can anyone be sure which party was at fault - or no-one if due to weather conditions. You need to make sure this isn't argued 'the ticket must have blown down' which is weak and you don't know who might/might not have helped it there.

Sallim

Ho Loo y,
Is there any update. Did you win the case? I received letter from DRP saying that notice of intended court action if i dont pay in 14 days then they will their client G24 Ltd to take legal action.
I did not see any sign when i parked there and it was quite dark that time. They sent me picture of car but its not clear from the picture of that is my car.
They Tried to zoom in and took number plate. My question is do they use video as evidence in court or picture taken from camera. I have not replied to there any letter. What is best course of action for me.
Thanks in advance

Quentin

Your only course if you hope to get advice is to start your own thread,!

Looby78

Hi guys. I was fighting this on behalf of my partner as the car in question was mine and initially she replied to VCS with an email of said ticket from the day before we knew anything about parking fines etc. They sent several letters initially which we ignored and then DRP and Zenith collections got involved. Eventually I took control of it and after some great help on here and pepipoo I replied several times to BW Legal. I think BW Legal basically gave up as their last reply was 19th January 2017 and they were keep offering more and more irrelevant case history and we were getting more and more robust in our replies.

Since then we had a new baby in March 17, moved house in August 17 and we'd not heard anything and so as life got busy I'd no need to come back on here and almost forgot about it.

However this week I've now had a Letter Before Claim from VCS about the same thing. Interestingly though it's to me, not my partner, who previously before we knew anything about parking fines had admitted she was driving on the day. So obviously I'm going to have to do a bit of research and sort a reply out. Has anything changed in the mean time on parking fines I should know about?

I've still got all of the letters from the various companies and two of the replies I sent, the ticket from the day and the photos of their quite poor signage, which differed in parts of the car park.

In terms of the reply I'm thinking I should thank them for telling me it has now been passed to their legal department, as they also did in on 16th December 2016. That I strongly deny any debt to VCS and point out that I retain a ticket from the day, as I also retain images of their inadequate signage from the time which included the words "your vehicle being immobilised or removed from site without further notice" which at the time was already illegal. Also pointing out that the claim appears to have arisen over a non payment of a tarif and a failure to display, but previous evidence from VCS proved we did display. The signs only stated that the ticket be displayed, not that it should be displayed in any particular way.


I'm going to have a scan now and try and get some more ideas on the forum, but thanks for any help given now or in the past.

Coupon-mad

moved house in August 17 and we'd not heard anything and so as life got busy I'd no need to come back on here and almost forgot about it.

However this week I've now had a Letter Before Claim from VCS about the same thing. Interestingly though it's to me, not my partner, who previously before we knew anything about parking fines had admitted she was driving on the day.

The really important thing will be to tell VCS in an email to their Data Protection Officer, to erase your old address data.

We assume the LBC has come to your new address as they traced you? But unless you get them to ERASE the old address you are i danger of a typical PPC sneaky tactic of a claim form going to the old address in the hope you don't see it in time.