BW Legal / VCS from 2011

beamerguy

mac_1867
Good reply, let's see what reply they will give.

Let us know

mac_1867

3.4 Before the Protection of Freedoms Act a private landholder could only seek liability against a vehicle driver to recover unpaid parking charges, and therefore needed to be able to identify who was the driver of the vehicle that incurred the parking charge. A landholder could make a request to DVLA for details of the registered keeper but there was no requirement for the registered keeper either to say who was driving the vehicle or to accept liability him or herself. This allowed both the vehicle driver and the registered keeper to avoid liability and meant that landholders, on certain occasions, found it difficult to manage parking by ticketing alone.

3.5 Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act addresses this situation. It allows, providing certain conditions are met, the landholder to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges if the registered keeper refuses or is unable to identify the driver at the time the parking charge was incurred. This is often referred to as “keeper liability”. However the registered keeper cannot be liable for any unpaid parking charges if he or she identifies the driver of the vehicle at the time the parking charge was incurred.

A little confused by this

yotmon

Top paragraph relates to your alleged infringement, bottom paragraph has no relevance to your case as law cannot be retrospective.

So, they could apply as in your case for the keeper details from the dvla prior to pofa, yet they could not pursue the keeper for payment, only ask them who was the driver. If the ppc could not identify the driver then it should be 'game over'.

mac_1867

should i put that paragraph into the reply?

beamerguy

mac_1867 wrote: »

should i put that paragraph into the reply?

I would not bother, they know that anyway.

If they are stupid enough to go to court then its part of your defence and a question to the judge

Coupon-mad

Pound wrote: »

BW Legal called me about an alleged not payment of parking from five years ago (who can remember who was driving their car that long ago?), perhaps I should have hung up, but I didn't and I made the same points that mac_1867 made.

In that phone call they claimed I'd committed an 'offence', the V5C for my vehicle had 'terms and conditions' that meant I was liable for anything that anyone driving my vehicle does and they planned to continue calling and writing letters to me despite me disputing the debt.

BW Legal aren't debt collectors, they're con artists. If they dialed the wrong number they would probably still threaten legal action against the person that answered.

You need to report that misleading pack of lies to the SRA - complaints are flooding in about BW Legal who are being investigated. But your phone call conversation is a new low.

The_Deep

Tell them that you will be quite happy to argue your case in front of a judge, but when you win, as you surely must, you will be seeking compensation for the wasted time they have cost you.

mac_1867

UPDATE

I have since received another 2 letters, one from early October and one today.

Early October was just another letter requesting payment, todays letter is another request but with a more firm approach and threats of legal action with all county court costs set out totalling £298.21

They have also denied acknowledgement of my response saying i either need to pay by or provide grounds for dispute and they have received neither (when they have)

Very tempted to send a strongly written email. This is getting on my nerves now.

beamerguy

mac_1867 wrote: »

UPDATE

I have since received another 2 letters, one from early October and one today.

Early October was just another letter requesting payment, todays letter is another request but with a more firm approach and threats of legal action with all county court costs set out totalling £298.21

They have also denied acknowledgement of my response saying i either need to pay by or provide grounds for dispute and they have received neither (when they have)

Very tempted to send a strongly written email. This is getting on my nerves now.

A pleading letter .... why not write back for a breakdown of £298.21 ...... You cannot accept an amount you know nothing about.

It's SRA complaint time again

mac_1867

i have complained to SRA, but, lets be honest, this isn't going to stop anytime soon.

They have broken down the costs and £298 is if we go to court and i lose which is all the usual charges they fabricate and slap on.

i have again just resent the original email.

They do not give up.