We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
BW Legal Letter Tennis- next step ?
McOfson
Posts: 34 Forumite
Hello all
So after all the usual letters at the other stages, I am the stage of letter tennis with BW legal, after a NTK from VCS (which was past the NTK 14 day limit). I have not disclosed who the driver was and am no longer the registered keeper of the vehicle. I sent a letter to BW Legal after they sent the generic £154, 'may' start legal proceedings letter. I responded with the text below, and have then recieved the following letter (also below)
Advice for next steps?
Thanks in advance.
letter to BW
"your client VCS, sent a notice to keeper which was non compliant with POFA 2012 . As such, no keeper liability can be formed if you were unsuccessful in identifying the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. In addition, VCS did not send the required paperwork to the registered keeper within the correct timescale, and 'no keeper liability' can be established if the ‘Notice to Keeper’ arrives late.
The notice to keeper denotes the maximum 'balance' (£100) that can be recovered, and as the supposed £54 initial legal costs were not applied at the time of this notice being served, they cannot be added to the 'unpaid balance.'
I also feel I must point out that in your letter you state that “should you successfully obtain a CCJ this may have effect on my future creditworthiness and employability”. You are misrepresenting the legal process, I feel as a scare tactic, as, should you be successful at a hearing, the losing party has 14 days to make payment or arrange a payment plan and as such this does not automatically obtain a CCJ against the losing party nor effect creditworthiness nor employability.
Your client has no right to pursue me and the legal action you threaten cannot succeed. As such you must now pursue the driver. I am under no obligation to name the driver and you have no legal basis to make an assumption that as the registered keeper at the time, I was the driver.
As I dispute this charge and consider this matter now closed, I politely request that you do not contact me further and refer it back to your client. Should further correspondence or telecommunications be forthcoming I will be left with no choice to report BW Legal to the SRA (Solicitors' Regulatory Authority) and the CSA (Credit Services Association) for the misleading information contained within this letter."
letter from BW
We confirm that client does not intend to rely on POFA 2012.
We referred to the possible consequences should a CCJ be obtained. It was not our intention to scare or misrepresent the legal process.
You confirm that we must now pursue the driver. Please confirm if you were the driver, and if not, the full name and address of the driver. In absence of driver details we are instructed to pursue you as registered keeper.
So after all the usual letters at the other stages, I am the stage of letter tennis with BW legal, after a NTK from VCS (which was past the NTK 14 day limit). I have not disclosed who the driver was and am no longer the registered keeper of the vehicle. I sent a letter to BW Legal after they sent the generic £154, 'may' start legal proceedings letter. I responded with the text below, and have then recieved the following letter (also below)
Advice for next steps?
Thanks in advance.
letter to BW
"your client VCS, sent a notice to keeper which was non compliant with POFA 2012 . As such, no keeper liability can be formed if you were unsuccessful in identifying the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. In addition, VCS did not send the required paperwork to the registered keeper within the correct timescale, and 'no keeper liability' can be established if the ‘Notice to Keeper’ arrives late.
The notice to keeper denotes the maximum 'balance' (£100) that can be recovered, and as the supposed £54 initial legal costs were not applied at the time of this notice being served, they cannot be added to the 'unpaid balance.'
I also feel I must point out that in your letter you state that “should you successfully obtain a CCJ this may have effect on my future creditworthiness and employability”. You are misrepresenting the legal process, I feel as a scare tactic, as, should you be successful at a hearing, the losing party has 14 days to make payment or arrange a payment plan and as such this does not automatically obtain a CCJ against the losing party nor effect creditworthiness nor employability.
Your client has no right to pursue me and the legal action you threaten cannot succeed. As such you must now pursue the driver. I am under no obligation to name the driver and you have no legal basis to make an assumption that as the registered keeper at the time, I was the driver.
As I dispute this charge and consider this matter now closed, I politely request that you do not contact me further and refer it back to your client. Should further correspondence or telecommunications be forthcoming I will be left with no choice to report BW Legal to the SRA (Solicitors' Regulatory Authority) and the CSA (Credit Services Association) for the misleading information contained within this letter."
letter from BW
We confirm that client does not intend to rely on POFA 2012.
We referred to the possible consequences should a CCJ be obtained. It was not our intention to scare or misrepresent the legal process.
You confirm that we must now pursue the driver. Please confirm if you were the driver, and if not, the full name and address of the driver. In absence of driver details we are instructed to pursue you as registered keeper.
0
Comments
-
Did they mention Elliott v Loake?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
-
no , not in any letter, I think it was the 'Beavis' they quoted in the last letter before I responded. I'm just not sure what angle to take with my response letter..0
-
Is this linked to the 2 other threads you've got running on VCS/BWL?
If so please PM 'Crabman' or 'soolin' (forum guides) and ask to have all 3 threads merged, otherwise we are trying to read this/advise without much context. Could get very confusing and with the threat of a court case quite an issue for you if you get irrelevant, or worse, wrong advice.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Thanks for this. I thought the other threads had come to an end or were not 'live' apols for this. and thanks for the advice. All the posts I have made are about the same PCN so I will ask Crabman to merge. Apols again and thanks for this!.0
-
umkomaas, does it look likely that court is an issue? Best wishes0
-
I am not sure what the relevance is to Beavis if they do not know who was driving.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
-
The deep, I'll recheck the letter to make sure, although I know it wasn't elliot v loake as I know that one is that they have to provide evidence to PROVE otherwise, i think..? (I think I've sent myself crazy reading pages and pages of forum posts from both here and the other good one!!)0
-
umkomaas, does it look likely that court is an issue? Best wishes
You're on that road, but so are thousands of others, but all too soon to say for definite if it will end up in court. One thing's for sure, they can't take everyone to court, but it looks more likely that those who ignore might be first in line. But who knows at this stage.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
sigh. it's all so legally detailed now and convoluted isn't it... and it seems that every case is slightly different depending on little different situations and parking company and with the IAS, POPLA etc etc... my brain is frying. I can see why thousands just pay up despite whatever the initial situation was. I'm not even the registered keeper anymore. double sigh But I know that so many others are going through exactly the same right now!0
-
So can they pursue /take to court the registered keeper..? (even though I'm not anymore..) Is that the current legal stance?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards