BW Legal / VCS from 2011

Fruitcake

mac_1867 wrote: »

It is quite obviously another mass mailing scheme to re-coup previously unpaid PCN.

I am not worried about the money its just after strictly telling people not to converse with these pigs, i then go against my own advice and start communicating with them.

Any recommendations on email or post?

Use any method specified by them. If by post, send from a Post Office and get a free proof of posting. Tis is important. Do not use any other method of posting.

If online, take a screenshot and/or video of the event.

mac_1867

I was tempted to email then i have proof of sending for my own evidence.

However i do not really want them having my business email address

Ralph-y

if you want to email , then create a new temp one ..... like gmail ...

Ralph:cool:

mac_1867

Email sent asking them to provide me with evidence as to who was driving the vehicle.

I shall update when i receive a reply or evidence.

Thank you and enjoy the rest of the weekend

Grimble

They will quote they are using EvL which relied on Police statements and forensic evidence. You might like this Quote from the former head of POPLA when London Councils run it, Mr Greenslade analyses some of the intricacies around keeper liability, correctly pointing out that
there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Harry Greenslade is a barrister and expert in parking law.

mac_1867

I have had a reply from BW Legal.

---

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx

We write in reference to your correspondence dated xx September, the contents of which have been duly noted.

Our client does not rely on the protection of freedom act 2012. As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, our client, in the absence of the drivers details, reasonably presumes you were the driver.

Should we not receive details of the driver, our client may instruct us to issue county court proceedings against you.

We are not in possession of photographs of the driver but only the vehicle on the date of the contravention.

Please provide us with details of the driver within 7 days of this letter.

---

pappa_golf

same shower (excel/vcs) see http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71336334&postcount=15

The_Deep

... in the absence of the drivers (sic) details, reasonably presumes you were the driver.

Ask them on what basis they make this presumption. Ask them, if it is Elliott v Loake, what forensic evidence they will be presenting to the court. Ask them if they are aware of Henry Greenslade's comments on making such a presumption.

Warn them that if they persist. you will be seeking punitive costa and damages for their unreasonable behaviour. Kick @rse.

beamerguy

mac_1867 wrote: »

I have had a reply from BW Legal.

---

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx

We write in reference to your correspondence dated xx September, the contents of which have been duly noted.

Our client does not rely on the protection of freedom act 2012. As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, our client, in the absence of the drivers details, reasonably presumes you were the driver.

Should we not receive details of the driver, our client may instruct us to issue county court proceedings against you.

We are not in possession of photographs of the driver but only the vehicle on the date of the contravention.

Please provide us with details of the driver within 7 days of this letter.

---

This rather proves the ignorance of BWLegal by stating that their client does not rely on the protection of freedom act 2012

AS you stated to BWLegal .....
As this alleged event pre-dates the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, I cannot be held liable for this charge and recommend that you contact the driver, who I am not able to identify without photographic evidence from yourself and/or VCS Ltd

So what if VCS does not rely on this, nothing to do with you what they do now.

At the time, UK law applied ... pre POFA

You may care to ask them for a more in depth response to their statement reminding them of the date of the so called event.
As they are threatening you without proof of the driver, whatever assumption they make cannot be proven

This is worth yet another complaint to the SRA as it is menacing and failure to prove their statement

mac_1867

In receipt of you letter dated xxth September 2016.

I note that the alleged parking event was over five years ago.

This pre-dates the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and your client has no right to pursue me as the registered keeper, you are blatantly ignoring these facts.

I have also stated i am not legally obliged to identify the driver, you may reasonably presume i was the driver but you are wrong and i deny this, as this is a company vehicle with whom there were a few drivers at that time.

I am also not legally obliged to give you any personal information regarding any employee of mine as this breaks the Data Protection act 1998.

You have no photographic evidence of who was driving and if you do not rely on the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 then on what grounds do you expect to take me to court with.