VCS/ BW Legal PCN - Parked for Maximum Period

Coupon-mad

If you can prove where you were, include that too, if not I'd say that is fine as long as you sign it.

Covering letter as discussed telling them where to go!

Yojimbo

Sure thing, I can sign it using an electronic signature right, or does it have to be my actual signature?

Coupon-mad

For anything you might want to show a Judge later, I would definitely sign by hand. Didn't realise anyone ever used electronic signatures in anything in life except work-related things. Never been asked that question before about papers you might want to show in court later!

Yojimbo

Happy New Year All!!

I've yet to receive a reply back from the SRA regarding this, however I received another letter from BW Legal.

"Further to our letter dated 31 August 2016 where we requested that you either pay the balance in full or provide your detailed grounds for disputing the PCN.

Please pay the balance by xxxxx or our client may instruct us to take legal action. For the avoidance of doubt the balance relates to the £100 parking charge notice and £54.00 for our client's initial legal fees, which were detailed in the car parks terms and conditions

County Court Proceedings

As we have previously brought to your attention, in the event County Court Proceedings are issued, we will be seeking recovery of not only the balance but our client's court fees, further to solicitor's costs and statutory interest which are estimated to be the following:

(A table showing the break down of estimated costs: totalling to £236.58)

We also wish to bring to your attention the case of Parking Eye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in which the Supreme Court held that parking charges serve a legitimate commercial interest and are neither extravagant nor unconscionable. This case eliminates the main defence that you may have should the matter go to court and this case will be relied upon, by our client, in any Court County proceedings."

The letter goes on a bit more, explaining that if the IAS dismisses my appeal then it is more than likely that the County Court will come to a similar conclusion and my defence will be unsuccessful.

I'm just wondering on what I should reply to them regarding this letter.

yotmon

I thought that they had ceased to send out this letter as it was one of the main reasons for complaints to the SRA - not only were they 'predicting' what your defence would be, but also insinuating that you would lose in court if you attempted to defend the action.

beamerguy

Yojimbo wrote: »

Happy New Year All!!

I've yet to receive a reply back from the SRA regarding this, however I received another letter from BW Legal.

County Court Proceedings

We also wish to bring to your attention the case of Parking Eye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in which the Supreme Court held that parking charges serve a legitimate commercial interest and are neither extravagant nor unconscionable. This case eliminates the main defence that you may have should the matter go to court and this case will be relied upon, by our client, in any Court County proceedings."

The letter goes on a bit more, explaining that if the IAS dismisses my appeal then it is more than likely that the County Court will come to a similar conclusion and my defence will be unsuccessful.

I'm just wondering on what I should reply to them regarding this letter.

Firstly, you should send a second complaint to the SRA advising that BWLegal are still sending out menacing letters.

We all know that BWLegal are on the funny stuff, whatever they are on now, they would probably make more money selling it

These bods prattling on about Beavis just show they have drawn the short straw yet again

And to actually say that just because the sham IAS reject an appeal a REAL court would agree is the biggest load of rubbish I have read from BWLegal.

A judge is only interested in facts and not fairytales about the IAS
AND especially the fairytales spun by BWLEGAL.

Coupon-mad

This case eliminates the main defence that you may have should the matter go to court and this case will be relied upon, by our client, in any Court County proceedings."

That sentence is worthy of a SRA complaint. How dare they say it eliminates your main defence when they have already been told that your main defence is...you were not the driver and you proved it.

I would robustly respond and tell them that and write this response as a section 10 notice under the DPA, demanding that they cease processing your data immediately because the DVLA only release data to non-POFA firms like VCS for the single purpose of enquiring who was driving. Pretending they have the right to keeper liability, or telling keepers that they have a legal obligation to name the driver, is disallowed and ironically, this was the exact conduct which caused VCS' sister company, Excel, to be banned in 2012 by the DVLA.

And tell them not to insult you with the irrelevant case of Elliott v Loake and suggest that they must inform VCS of your intention to counter-claim for data misuse, by harassing a registered keeper who has shown evidence that you were not the driver.

Tell them they have no case but you will sue VCS and the landowner...blah blah*




*search the forum for 'Vidal-Hall section 10' to find a letter already written like the above.

beamerguy

We must assume that whoever writes this rubbish for BWLegal is totally clueless
It's like having a headless chicken running around