VCS - BW Legal Demand Letter

thegoldenvision

I have recently received a letter from BW Legal relating to a none payment of a parking charge notice.

This is the appeals notice I originally sent

[FONT=&quot]You issued me with a parking charge notice on 22nd January 2016 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reason:

[FONT=&quot]Mitigating Circumstances[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are mitigating circumstances to explain why I parked where I did and I am requesting that the charge be waived for this reason.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I was due to attend an interview at premises in the concerned business park. I had already driven completely around the park once in an attempt to locate the entrance to the premises. The vehicle was made stationary whilst I used sat nav (as shown in your second image) to ascertain the correct directions for the entrance to the premises as this was the far safer option than continuing to drive whilst using the sat nav. At no point was the engine switched off and as soon as the correct location was ascertained I moved the vehicle away.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you respond to the points raised.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

This was obviously rejected by VCS. I then filed an appeal with the IAS which was again denied with the following response

[FONT=&quot]"It is important that the Appellant to understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and the Appellant is free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish.

The guidance to this appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

It is clear from images provided that the vehicle was indeed stopped within the restricted area. I am satisfied that the Operator has proved the Appellant breached the terms of entry to the private land by stopping. The vehicle is stopped on double yellow lines, adjacent to the Operator’s signage for a period of at least 120 seconds. Having studied the images provided I am satisfied that the Appellant did indeed stop their vehicle in a restricted area as alleged by the Operator.

The Operator provides evidence to show that there are numerous signs on site, which state ‘No Stopping’ and ‘£100 Charge if you Stop’ at any time. I am satisfied that the signage on site is neither misleading nor unclear and was made reasonably apparent to the Appellant. It appears that the Appellant accepts that they did stop in contravention of the terms.

I have been presented with evidence to show that the signage complies with current regulations and is sufficient to create a contractual relationship between the Appellant and the Operator. I am satisfied that fair warning of the terms was provided to the Appellant prior to the parking event and that the Appellant chose to stop in contravention of these terms. The Parking Charge Notice has been issued because the Appellant stopped in a restricted area.

I am shown evidence that the Appellant must have driven passed a number of the signs which exist on the site when arriving at the position of parking. I am also shown evidence that ’No Stopping’ signs exist to the rear and passenger side of the Appellant’s vehicle and that the vehicle appears to be parked on double yellow lines. The images show that the Appellant’s vehicle was stationary for approximately 120 seconds. I am satisfied that the vehicle is indeed stopped within the restricted area and that the Appellant was made reasonably aware of the aforementioned terms.

Despite the Appellant’s comments I am satisfied that the Operator has proved their prima facie case. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with. Once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.[/FONT]

I subsequently ignored further correspondence from VCS and have now received the following from BW Legal

We have been instructed by Vehicle Control Services Limted in relation to the balance due for the above PCN

For the avoidance of doubt, the balance due includes the £100 PCN charge plus our clients initial legal costs of £54 which are detailed in the car park terms and conditions.


As you have failed to make payment or raise an appeal within 28 days from the date of the PCN the balance due remains outstanding and we require payment within 16 days from the date of this letter. If you fail to make payment or provide reasons for non payment within the specified timeframe we will seek our clients instructions to commence legal proceedings against you in the form of a County Court Claim Form in the County Court ..... It goes on re paying online and the consequences of having a CCJ

So do I hold firm and not pay or make the payment before the costs get any hire.

Redx

please search and read all recent BW LEGAL £54 threads and you will see that you need to respond with a GAN letter

its all been explained dozens of times to other recent posters on here and the same over on pepipoo forums (where GAN is an active member)

thegoldenvision

Apologies and thanks for the pointers