BW Legal - I think I lost

Seagate

yotmon wrote: »

Bit strange that they were requesting full payment of £100 from the keeper. Under the IPC's Codes of Practice, Parts C. 3.1 (m) it states that they should inform the keeper of any discount for prompt payment. According to your post, they didn't.

It may on the letter posted by VCS that a discounted price was offered. From what i remember the letter was the typical first letter to be sent. "yada yada your vehicle was parked here, yada yada £100 please....." It was surprising to receive the letter a whopping 56 days after the invoice was placed on the vehicle.

Suppose that the driver didn't see the ticket in the first place, or it was removed without them knowing.... that's a hell of a delay and very little turn around time to gather evidence etc. Still, the letter was destroyed.

Ill keep replying and questioning as the day goes on. Suffice to say, my wife is an ex law graduate, the legalise is the least of my worries.

pappa_golf

they are not allowed to contact the DVLA until 28 days after the incident

Seagate

Okay all,
Quick line of questioning and another sign of my gratitude for all the work you guys do!

Coupon Mad
You mentioned before that VCS do not use the POFA. Isnt this legislation and therefor applies to everyone, everywhere? For example: Many of my contracts don't state that i will sell client data to the highest bidder, but it'd be illegal for me to do so as it still comes under the data protection act. Ive read through the POFA and whilst i understand the document, perhaps you could clarify its implementation?

Beamer Guy
Bankruptcy online......ah yes. A hasty google search would be the cause of this! There are quite a few companies out there actually, who offer 'free' help with quashing BW Legal threats for parking fines. Sounds like steering clear is the best option.

The Deep
With respect to a complaint to the SRA, you mention the £54 is unlawful. It certainly feels unlawful. (Are they using filter coffee and toilet paper to justify these expenses?) How ever, in what sense is this unlawful? I'd say that buying debt and chasing it willy-nilly is a tough gig, and presumably evidence is required in any court, small claims or not! So far as i can tell, there is NO photographic evidence of the car in situe, nor is there any evidence of who the driver was. A £54 addition feels like pick a number, any number, add it to the charge. This in and of it self seems like sloppy practice. Would you base the complaint around this alone?

Right, back to the reading desk!

beamerguy

Seagate wrote: »

Beamer Guy
Bankruptcy online......ah yes. A hasty google search would be the cause of this! There are quite a few companies out there actually, who offer 'free' help with quashing BW Legal threats for parking fines. Sounds like steering clear is the best option.

This site and pepipoo will give the best reliable advice you will get anywhere. You know what the internet is about.

This is not a bankruptcy issue so please dismiss that

Coupon-mad is without doubt the guru who will assist so follow what she says.
Also many other great posters on here.
Our motto is "beat the bas**ards at their own game"

Right now, BWLegal are producing rubbish in court and will probably continue like that. Basically because they are attempting to do something that is nearly damn impossible and the judge who recently spanked them is actually the leader in the game of courts ... (not thrones)

pappa_golf

Seagate wrote: »

The Deep
With respect to a complaint to the SRA, you mention the £54 is unlawful. It certainly feels unlawful. (Are they using filter coffee and toilet paper to justify these expenses?) How ever, in what sense is this unlawful? I'd say that buying debt and chasing it willy-nilly is a tough gig, and presumably evidence is required in any court, small claims or not! So far as i can tell, there is NO photographic evidence of the car in situe, nor is there any evidence of who the driver was. A £54 addition feels like pick a number, any number, add it to the charge. This in and of it self seems like sloppy practice. Would you base the complaint around this alone?

Right, back to the reading desk!

B+W (unlike MIL collections) are NOT buying debts , they are simply acting as solisitors for the parking Co,s


back to reading me thinks

The_Deep

Seagate, the maximum they can claim is the original parking charge, the court fee, £50 legal costs, and a few pounds interest, but only if they take you to court and win.


As they have not at this stage done so, obviously they are not entitled to some of it.


Complain to the SRA about costs, threats of CCJs, mention of credit rating, Elliott v Loake if applicable, mention of Beavis if not relevant, and any attempt to coerce you into paying by taking advantage of your lacxk of legal training.


The SRA will already have hundreds of complaints concerning this firm anything against them will add fuel to the fire.

Umkomaas

Using PoFA is optional. If they wish to pursue the keeper they must comply with every word of PoFA Schedule 4. If they don't wish to use PoFA, no one forces them, but legally they can only pursue the driver.

The fact they still hound the keeper is one of the great injustices about this; they rely on the keeper not understanding the nuances of the law and hope that they fold and pay under the threat of and in their ignorance of the law. One of the main reasons we fight this rubbish.

In the case of an IPC AOS member (as VCS is) only a judge is going to tell them that legally they have no case - and to FRO.

Seagate

Hi all, Right you are Papa Golf,

I've prepared an initial response to BW Legal (Can you believe i used to live 2 minutes away from their head office, i digress) You'll probably all recognise the framework, but it seemed to be the most relevant to this case.

"Dear BW Legal,

With reference to your letter dated ** October 2016, ref VC*******
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and deny, any debt to VCS Ltd.

In your letter I note several breaches of the Solicitor's Code of Conduct regarding your attempt to take advantage of a third party's lack of legal knowledge. I refer in particular to your claim for £54 legal costs. Even if they have been incurred, you are fully aware that they cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court and should be met by your client.
I also note your misrepresentation of the consequences of an adverse judgement. You are in breach of Chapter 11 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct, specifically (Indicative Behaviours) IB 11.7 and 11.8.

Furthermore, as a member of the Credit Services Association and therefore signatory to their codes of practice, BW Legal is in breach of several of these codes. As the debt is disputed continued correspondence from yourselves will be seen as a further breach of that COP.

If I receive a Letter Before Action that fully meets the requirements of the Practice Direction for pre-action conduct and protocols, I will provide a more detailed response. However, be assured that any court claim against me will be defended fully.

Yours Faithfully"

To re-iterate an earlier point, the area that the vehicle was parked is sign posted. Im really not sure where the defence is based for this one. The honest reason i'm fighting is because there is no way the hospital has lost £154 for the vehicle to be parked in an unused car park! Its extortionate. And like hell the hospital will see any of that money if payed!

Anyway, there are a couple of similar cases on Pepipoo that i'm following/mirroring. If the wording in the letter above is sound, let me know and ill send it ASAP. First class, with receipt of postage. ( I did some more reading)

Thank you all again. Apologies if i come across as dismissive at all, this has all been a late night, very sleepless endeavour.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine as a response - they will reply with some old tosh, as you will have seen on the other threads like yours on here and on pepipoo. Keep responding and when you have some misleading drivel, ask your wife to write a SRA complaint by comparing their misleading words to the SRA Code (complaints can be submitted online).

Umkomaas has explained to you that the DVLA and parking firms reckon the POFA Schedule 4 is optional, because it was introduced to help parking firms get keeper liability. The Schedule is only there to enable that. A lot of firms can't manage to comply with the deadlines/wording so they gave up and went back to 'old rules', old PCNs, which can only hold a driver liable.

Hence why you respond (and defend if you get a daft claim) as the keeper, throughout. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and there is no obligation upon keepers to tell a private firm who was driving either.

You and your wife might like to read Lamilad's threads on here and pepipoo, even though BW Legal have not featured, he is defending a claim direct from VCS' sister company, Excel. his threads are interesting for you because your wife can see a defence and a Witness Statement and all the 'POFA/no keeper liability' stuff that can be argued. AND he's just posted a pic of the signs Excel are relying on (spot the £100 hidden, nay positively BURIED, in small print).

VCS signs are likely to be just as unclear as Lamilad's ones - look at them with fresh eyes!

Having signs up is not enough if the terms & charge are not legible/in large lettering suited for outdoor signage. Your wife's contract law units will have taught her why such unclear, wordy/small font signs cannot create a contract with a consumer to pay £100. And the Consumer Rights Act 2015 prohibits terms being hidden.

Pammie7722

Hello,

I parked in an excel parking services car park in December 2015, the parking was only 60p for an hour, but the pay machine was out of order and had a sleeve on it, there was no other parking meter. So I nipped into a shop, I was only there for 10 minutes and left.

A few months later, I received a fine from parking excel. I appealed and said that the machine was out of order and I couldn't use to pay (it was only 60p - I would have paid it if I could). I have no evidence that the machine was out of order, because I didn't get the fine until a few months later and I thought nothing of it at the time.

The said my appeal was not valid and I had to pay the fine.

After looking on forums like this, I decided to ignore the rest of the letters.

I am now getting letters from BW Legal saying I must pay £154 or I will be taken to court and have a CCJ. I am slightly worried now, because my credit history is fantastic.

Do I continue to ignore these letters or pay? I really don't know what to do.

Pam )