4year old pcn at JLA and MCOL?

bod1467

Herzlos wrote: »

Yeah the last thing these cowboys want is for this to go to a court because a precedent against them will sink their entire business model, as well as any fallout from it being proven they are running a scam.

Small claims/MCOL proceedings don't set precedents. They may be persuasive if referenced in a defence, but a judge is free to ignore them for any given case.

Fixtrace6

I am thinking of replying to LB Legal with something like this.

With ref to your letter dated xxx
Acc No xxx Veh Reg xxx
I am the registered keeper of that car. I was not driving when the incident you refer to took place. The charge is disputed and you must now refer this matter back to your client and stop all contact with me. I will not respond to any further communication unless it comes from a court. Any court proceedings would be vigerously defended.
Please tell your client they need to take this matter up with the driver of the vehicle.
Yours etc

Do I need to mention that as it happened in early 2012 I do not need to pass on the driver's details? I was thinking of keeping it simple but firm. Any other bits anyone thinks should be added.
Thanks

Herzlos

I'd keep it short and to the point, so wouldn't point out anything about keeper liability.

You could try and cut off their reply with something like the following:

"Please don't insult us both by pretending that Eliott Vs Loake has any relevance here."

(For reference, Eliott Vs Loake is a criminal case involving foresnsic evidence which concludes the keeper was the driver, which BW will claim is the basis for VCS assuming that the keeper is the driver, thus no reliance on the Protection Of Freedoms Act.)

Herzlos

bod1467 wrote: »

Small claims/MCOL proceedings don't set precedents. They may be persuasive if referenced in a defence, but a judge is free to ignore them for any given case.

I meant in terms of press coverage - if VCS get destroyed in court over the airport parking, then their pay-up rate will plummet.

The_Deep

PPCs will often quote Elliott v Loake as justification for assuming that the RK was the driver.

However, Elliott v Loake was a case in a Magistrates' Court where forensic evidence proved that the driver was lying. If a PPC/IAS/PoPLA quotes this in a Civil case they should be robustly corrected.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5253885

Umkomaas

This is never going anywhere near a court!

pappa_golf

Umkomaas wrote: »

This is never going anywhere near a court!

DAMMED , I went out and bought a popcorn concession, especially for this case :j

Fixtrace6

Thanks all.
I was thinking of adding this bit that I found on another thread.

"Please let your client know that the incident occurred before the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore there can be no 'keeper liability'. Therefore, they have no right to pursue the Registered Keeper for payment when it cannot identify the driver; I am also under no obligation to disclose who was the driver even if I could recollect who was driving on a particular day nearly 4 years ago. I repeat, your client needs to take this up with the driver not the Registered Keeper" owtte

I have also noticed that the b w legal letter is signed by someone called BW Legal. That is the signature. Not a name or a squiggle but someone has signed the name of the company.Is there a reason for this? It makes me think they haven't a clue.

bod1467

If it's not signed by a named person then it isn't a compliant Letter Before Claim, therefore it's merely a debt collector letter.

Herzlos

Fixtrace6 wrote: »

It makes me think they haven't a clue.

They don't have a clue. That's why they've got involved with the PPCs.