VCS/ BW Legal PCN - Parked for Maximum Period

Yojimbo

I am the keeper of vehicle, but not the driver at the time of incident detected by ANPR.

On November 2015, the driver received a parking ticket for overstaying in a free car park. The maximum time you could park there was 1hrs and the driver went over by 41 mins. Not realising that there was any restrictions in place, being a Sunday (naive to think that... I know, but hey ho).

After receiving a few letters, 4 in total, 2 from VCS, 1 from DRP and 1 from Zenith. All of these were ignored, following the advice on other forums (I realise now, I should've replied to them sooner). But now I've received a letter from BW legal, outlining that I must pay, £100 for the PCN, plus £54 for the clients legal cost, within 16 days.

I've also gone over this date now, but before bowing to their bullying and scare mongering tactics. I think, that I need to make a stand against them.

The original PCN was issued to me 16 days after the incident. These days could be calculated from the date of the incident to the issue date shown on the letter. Now am I correct in thinking that the PoFA 2012, states that the PCN should be sent to the keeper within 14 days, otherwise the PCN should be cancelled?

This coupled with the fact that I wasn't the driver at the time, do you think that this makes for a solid defence. I'm aiming to email them as soon as possible.

Any advice and support will be greatly appreciated!

Umkomaas

There are dozens upon dozens of VCS/Excel/BWL threads running here and on PePiPoo where all the questions have been asked and answered. A search on both forums will provide you with a good understanding of where you are on the time continuum and how to deal with this. The better your understanding, the easier it will be for you to deal with, so definitely don't restrict yourself to this thread alone - things are pretty fluid on the BWL front and are likely to change quickly - so keep abreast.

All of these were ignored, following the advice on other forums

Sorry, but no private parking forum has provided that advice for almost 4 years as a result of the introduction of PoFA in October 2012. You haven't been reading MumsNet for advice on this, I hope?

The original PCN was issued to me 16 days after the incident. These days could be calculated from the date of the incident to the issue date shown on the letter. Now am I correct in thinking that the PoFA 2012, states that the PCN should be sent to the keeper within 14 days, otherwise the PCN should be cancelled?

Correct, to a point, depending on whether they are legally pursuing the vehicle's keeper. PPCs (especially IPC members) are deliberately vague on this, relying on the fact that most keepers won't have the foggiest idea what PoFA is, or how they might be protected under its legislation.

It isn't a reason for the PCN to be cancelled, but legally it can take the keeper out of the loop, but you'll need to do your homework on this because you may have to explain the intricacies of PoFA to a judge to extricate yourself from this. Simply saying 'I wasn't the driver - period' won't prevent you having to deal with this in a thorough manner, so it's plenty of reading in the first place to absorb where things are and where you are in the process - always come back for advice as your case progresses. But everything you need to know is already out there.

The time for 'ignoring' this is long gone, you must roll your sleeves up now.

Carthesis

The rules on PoFA2012 NtKs are summarised in this post:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71325699&postcount=3

They seem to be right on the cusp of when then can send the notice out, but it depends on what legal vaguities they're using to make out that they've assumed the Keeper to be the Driver.

Coupon-mad

The original PCN was issued to me 16 days after the incident. These days could be calculated from the date of the incident to the issue date shown on the letter. Now am I correct in thinking that the PoFA 2012, states that the PCN should be sent to the keeper within 14 days, otherwise the PCN should be cancelled?

No, that's irrelevant because VCS do not attempt to use the POFA. And they don't have to...but it then creates the problem for them that they cannot hold the keeper liable.

There is no need for you to pore over the POFA because it's not relevant to this PCN. It is a 'driver liability only' charge.

Yojimbo

They seem to be right on the cusp of when then can send the notice out, but it depends on what legal vaguities they're using to make out that they've assumed the Keeper to be the Driver.

I've looked back at the BW Legal letter, and I see what you mean about them being vague.

The so call 'contravention' was captured via ANPR. According to the Parking Cowboys blog on keeper-liability, if it is a ANPR, the NtK has to be sent within 14 days after the vehicle was parked. On the first PCN letter received, it clearly shows that it was sent after 14 days.

Below is the letter template, I plan to send to BWL. What do you think, should I include the bit about how the NtK has to be sent within 14 days?

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Your reference xxxxxx

Regarding the above reference number quoted to me in your letter dated 15 November 2015; I maintain that no responsibility for the “offence” alleged, and I deny any debt at all, I have no intention of paying the money demanded by your client and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

As the keeper I am under no obligation to name the driver and you have no legal basis to make an assumption that as the registered keeper, I was the driver.

Your client has no right to pursue me and the legal action you threaten cannot succeed.

The matter is therefore closed

Yours Faithfully

Coupon-mad

The so call 'contravention' was captured via ANPR. According to the Parking Cowboys blog on keeper-liability, if it is a ANPR, the NtK has to be sent within 14 days after the vehicle was parked. On the first PCN letter received, it clearly shows that it was sent after 14 days.

Nope that is not relevant to this sort of (non-POFA) PCN, as I explained above. This is NOT a 'keeper liability' PCN, it's a driver-only one which is good for an appellant or defendant who remains as 'the KEEPER' of course.

Yojimbo

So BW legal replied back to my email above, stating that they are aware that I was not the driver, but I was not forth coming with the drivers detail, so VCS has assumed that I was the driver, and they've quoted Elliot v Loake (1982). I understand that this case was more to do with the RK lieing about driver whilst he was involved in a car accident.

I can see that they are resorting to scare mongering tactics in order for me to pay. So I've found a
template letter below, which I'm planning to email over to them. If you can advise, if this letter is okay to use?

Thank you for your letter dated 6 October 2016.

As per my last email, I deny any debt to VCS, who you have referred to on your latest letter.

In your letter a reference is made to Elliot v Loake [1982]. This was a criminal law case where there was irrefutable evidence of the driver and there were no issues with liability. I’m not sure I understand its relevance to this case.

The claimant has to prove their case and you have not shown any evidence that I was the driver. This is because you cannot, because I was not the driver.

I would also point out that the £54 legal costs are not recoverable under CPR27.14, nor under the POFA.

If you continue to pursue me then I will ask the court to award additional costs due to your client's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Umkomaas

So BW legal replied back to my email above, stating that they are aware that I was not the driver, but I was not forth coming with the drivers detail, so VCS has assumed that I was the driver, and they've quoted Elliot v Loake (1982). I understand that this case was more to do with the RK lieing about driver whilst he was involved in a car accident.

Did they actually put this in writing? They accept that you were not the driver, yet are pursuing you as the driver using E-v-L? If they were pursuing you under PoFA, that might make sense if they had their NtK in full compliance (which they won't) but E-v-L - nope!

Can you copy exactly what they say in this regard, because if it is as you say, this needs a very strong complaint to the SRA and DVLA.

In terms of the letter you are proposing to send to BWL, it looks ok as far as keeping the ping-pong going with them. It shows you as not being unreasonable and are maintaining a dialogue in order to settle the case (in your favour and paying nowt!).

Yojimbo

Yes they sent the letter below to me;

We write in reference to the above matter and your communication.

VCS's claim is for the sum of £154.00 and is in relation to monies (and legal expenses) owed pursuant to the PCN.

We note from your correspondence that you state you were not the driver at the time of the PCN. As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, our client, in absence of the driver's details, reasonably presumes you were the driver and we refer you to the case of Elliott v Loake [1982].

We note your position in that you are not prepared to make any payment of the outstanding debt. We shall now seek VCS's instructions with regards to issuing Court Proceeding to recover the outstanding balance.

Please note that as part of the legal process we are required to issue you with a LBBCA letter, which you shall receive shortly.

Notwithstanding the above our client is still prepared to accept repayment of the debt without further costs being incurred we would be grateful if you would contact us within 7 days from the date of this letter to pay the balance.

In the event you are unable to pay the balance in full, please contact our helpful team, on the details above, to discuss our suitable payment options.

We look forward to hearing with you within 7 days.

Your faithfully,
bw legal

beamerguy

Yojimbo wrote: »

Yes they sent the letter below to me;

We write in reference to the above matter and your communication.

VCS's claim is for the sum of £154.00 and is in relation to monies (and legal expenses) owed pursuant to the PCN.

We note from your correspondence that you state you were not the driver at the time of the PCN. As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, our client, in absence of the driver's details, reasonably presumes you were the driver and we refer you to the case of Elliott v Loake [1982].

We note your position in that you are not prepared to make any payment of the outstanding debt. We shall now seek VCS's instructions with regards to issuing Court Proceeding to recover the outstanding balance.

Please note that as part of the legal process we are required to issue you with a LBBCA letter, which you shall receive shortly.

Notwithstanding the above our client is still prepared to accept repayment of the debt without further costs being incurred we would be grateful if you would contact us within 7 days from the date of this letter to pay the balance.

In the event you are unable to pay the balance in full, please contact our helpful team, on the details above, to discuss our suitable payment options.

We look forward to hearing with you within 7 days.

Your faithfully,
bw legal

BWLegal are certainly jokers, it's like watching a "punch and judy" show aimed at kids

There is no comparison to the Elliott v Loake case unless they are accusing you of being a criminal.

This is menacing, they are trying to extort money from you.

As many before you, you must complain to the SRA about this Punch and Judy show run by BWLegal.

You can reply to BWLegal stating that regarding their recent reply, you have now issued a complaint to the SRA and until a suitable answer is received from the SRA ... THIS MATTER IS NOW ON HOLD

Umkomaas

They don't state anywhere that they are aware you were not the driver.

You must read the letters very carefully, otherwise if we'd have taken your statement << stating that they are aware that I was not the driver >> we could easily have sent you off on a wild goose chase with (inaccurate) complaints to the SRA and DVLA. Probably meaning any further legitimate complaint you might make to them would likely carry little weight.

You don't need egg on your face in trying to deal with this.