BW Legal - No parking fine letters received

holly_p

Hi so posted on here last year

basically i received a letter from vehicle control services limited and a letter from bw legal in the same envelope dated 1 march 2017. the letter from vehicle control services limited was regarding failed payment of a balance and the letter from bw legal was about their client VCS regarding paying a balance of £100 PCN and £60 legal costs.

i emailed bw legal on the 9 march 2017 as follows

Thank you for your letter dated 1st March 2016.

I have never received any correspondence from Vehicle Control Services Limited regarding PCN **** and was therefore unaware of a penalty until both the Vehicle Control Service Limited letter and your BW Legal letter came through in the same envelope. I have therefore not been given the chance to make payment or appeal within 28 days from the PCN. Can you please send me copies of any letters Vehicle Control Services Limited has allegedly sent to me regarding the PCN **** and can you please confirm with proof that these letters were sent and received.

I emailed this to 3 of bw legal's email addresses to ensure someone would receive it. I received automated responses stating someone would be in contact as soon as possible. on the 11 march 2017 i called bw legal at 10.13 (i have proof) and told them what I said in the email and that i had also had no response from the 3 emails i had sent. bw legal assured me they would look into it and put my file on hold.

I received a letter from bw legal dated 13 march 2017 stating they had put my file on hold whilst they query this matter with their client (VCS). it also stated that they would contact me with a response to my query.

it is now the 19th may 2018. 14 months since i queried it and i never had a response. i have now received a county court claim claiming;

amount claimed 170.70
court fee 25.00
legal representative's costs 50.00
total amount 245.70

the amount claimed is made up of
the claimant's claim sum of £100
interest rate of 8% £10.70
and contractual costs pursuant to terms and conditions of £60.00

I have proof of the phone call and emails and have kept all the letters.

i called VCS and asked what address they had on record and it was still my old address. which I'm guessing the original pcn letters were sent to. bw legal and the VCS letter were sent to my current address at the time. and so was the hold letter. i moved in sept 2017 so between march 2017 and sept 2017 they never contacted me about the query. the county claim came to my new and current address. bw legal have also searched for me on a credit database as my clearscore report is showing them doing a search on me twice.

unsure what to do next?

Coupon-mad

Been to the carpark tonight. There is one sign in really small writing that does actually have VCS in small print. However there are 3 others that say Excel (these are a fair distance from where the car was parked). The sign that is near the entrance is under a massive tree and not lit up and states Excel. The only sign that states VCS is the one on the ticket machine which is in the middle of the car park. This is the only sign that states the full terms and conditions. The others state you accept the terms and conditions of Excel

I love the fact you went to the car park a year ago and saw Excel signs - I do hope you took photos and kept them as evidence? You will need that evidence later, at WS stage.

Please read the second post of the NEWBIES thread. Do the AOS online first, as shown there.

Then you might want to search the forum for BW legal defence and copy & adapt one that's been used before. Only recent ones from 2017/18. Show us your draft like everyone else with a claim does.

Also search 'common ground defence' to find the style of example defence that actually starts properly, by saying what the situation was about the ticket, not waffle! At the start of yours, you need to say it will be common ground that the car was in the car park on the material date (if you agree that much) then continue and say why you are not liable...and have a clear point that in 2017 you visited the car park and have photo evidence that the signs are in the name Excel Parking Services, not VCS, so there can have been no contract offered by the Claimant.

Also read the various example defences in the NEWBIES thread post #2 as well.

We help people win around 99% of cases. No risk, no CCJ, just stick around and read the forum.

holly_p

Thank you

im currently writing my defense now and will post once ive finished. Just wanted to add that I never received a letter before claim which I read on threads that I should of before the claim was processed. Am I right? The last I heard from BW legal was 13th March 2017. I moved house September 9th 2017 so between then I didnt received a single letter about my query.

Castle

According to Wakefield Council, the business rates are paid by Excel Parking Services.

holly_p

This is what I have so far, can guide me on what needs improving, Ive read as many defences and forums I could find. Any advice will be appreciated!

Claim Number: *******

BETWEEN:
Vehicle Control Service Limited (Claimant)
vs
H****** ***** (Defendant)
___________________________________________________________________________
Defence Skeleton Argument

I am ******* of ******, ******, defendant in this matter.

The claim is denied on the following points;

1. The particulars of claim do not state a clear cause of action. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged contravention in the particulars of the claim as no notice to keeper PCN was served to the keeper at the the keepers address. The keeper contacted BW Legal by email 3 times requesting copies of the notice to keeper PCN and previous correspondence on the 9th March 2017, all received an automated reply stating that BW Legal would be in contact but BW Legal did not contact. The keeper called BW Legal on the 11th March 2017 due to receiving no reply to the 3 emails. BW Legal assured the keeper over the phone that the file would be put on hold until they could get copies of the notice to keeper PCN and previous correspondence. The keeper received a letter from BW Legal dated the 13th March 2017 confirming the file being put on hold and that BW Legal would be in contact. No further contact has been made from BW Legal to the keeper until the claim dated 17th May 2018.

1.1 No attempt was made by the claimant to provide suitable information or evidence of this breach despite the defendants direct requests, three emails dated 9th March 2017 and one phone call dated 11th March 2017. A further request was made 13th March 2017 to Vehicle Control Services Limited which was denied.

2. I defend as a registered keeper I am not able to say who was driving the car at the time of the alleged contravention as it was November 2016, that was over 18 months ago and as no notice to keeper PCN was received I have not been given a specific time that the alleged contravention occurred.

3. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the driver. The claim is for parking without purchasing a valid ticket

3.1 The signage at Smyth Street - Wakefield Anpr Vccs Scheme Std (60-100) does not meet the requirements set by the IPC Code of Practice 'If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge. All signs at the sight are not illuminated and three are situated under overgrown trees obscuring any information. Only one sign has the terms and conditions of Excel and this is in very small writing quite far into the car park which would not be seen from the entrance. All other signs which are not clearly seen state "you accept the terms and conditions of Excel" but there is no explanation of what those terms and conditions are.

4. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case.

4.1 Neither the claim form, nor the signage state who the owner of the land is.

4.2 The signage at Smyth Street - Wakefield Anpr Vcs Scheme Std (60-100) indicates that the car park is operated by Excel Parking and therefore any contract within this car park is with Excel Parking. I have not received any demand for payment from Excel Parking, nor has the claimant, Vehicle Control Services Limited, ever indicated that a contract has been transferred to them. I therefore have no contract with the claimant and no liability to the claimant.

4.3 The signage states that "Excel Parking Services LTD manage and control this car park". Excel parking services LTD are therefore acting as an agent on behalf of the landowner. As an agent, Excel Parking Services LTD has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name or on behalf of Vehicle Control Services Limited who would also being acting as an agent.

4.4 If Vehicle Control Services LTD deny acting as an agent , they are put to strict proof by disclosing the appropriate part of their contract with the landowner.

5. The particulars of the Claim state that. The Claimant also claims £60 contractual costs pursuant to the PCN terms and conditions.

5.1 Previous letters to the defendant from BW Legal have stated that the £60 claimed is for "our Clients initial legal fees".

5.2 Legal services cannot be claimed in the the small claims court as per CPR 27.14.

6. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye V Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 (The Beavis Case) which was dependant upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage which formed a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park fee. None of this applies in this case.

7. The claim includes a sum of £50, described as"legal representatives costs". This work is done as part of the claimants everyday routine and no 'expert services' are involved. The Claimant is put to strict proof, by way of timesheet or otherwise, to show how this cost has been incurred.

Quentin

You were previously advised to edit posts to ensure differentiation between driver and keeper.

The ppcs monitor here and can use your posts against you.

I have not read all the thread but #10 needs editing as it doesn't differentiate the two!

holly_p

Not sure how else i can differentiate from what Ive already written.

Quentin

Your latest edit has sorted it

Coupon-mad

You need to change 'I' to the third person: 'The Defendant' throughout, e.g.

2. [STRIKE]I defend as a[/STRIKE] Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, due to the passage of time and the fact that there is no obligation to do so, the Defendant cannot [STRIKE]I am not able to[/STRIKE] say who was driving the car at the time of the alleged contravention. This was in [STRIKE]as it was[/STRIKE] November 2016, [STRIKE]that was[/STRIKE] over 18 months ago and as no notice to keeper (postal PCN) was received, the Defendant has never been informed about the [STRIKE]I have not been given a[/STRIKE] specific time that the alleged contravention occurred, so there was never an opportunity to identify the driver and now it is far too late. No assumption can be made and the car was insured to be driven by more than one named driver at the material time, as well as by any authorised friend or family member with a valid fully comprehensive insurance policy.

Could add Castle's point, here:

4.1 Neither the claim form, nor the signage state who the owner of the land is. According to Wakefield Council, the business rates are paid by Excel Parking Services, which is a different legal entity from this Claimant.

Third person needed here too:

4.2 The signage at Smyth Street - Wakefield Anpr Vcs Scheme Std (60-100) indicates that the car park is operated by Excel Parking and therefore any contract within this car park is with Excel Parking. I have not received any demand for payment from Excel Parking, nor has the claimant, Vehicle Control Services Limited, ever indicated that a contract has been transferred to them. [STRIKE]I therefore have[/STRIKE] The driver made no contract with the claimant and, as registered keeper of the car, the Defendant has no liability to the claimant.

Here it needs a bit more to be forceful:

3. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the driver. The claim is for parking without purchasing a valid ticket but this has never been evidenced and mere ANPR images of a car at the entrance and exit, is nothing to do with the separate Pay & Display ticket machine system. Given the fact that these machine keypads do fail to record VRNs properly or fully (through no fault of victim drivers) the Claimant is put to strict proof of its claim, including evidence of all payments made at all machines onsite, around the material time.

holly_p

Thank you so much for your help This is the revised defence. AOS has been given. I'm a little worried about the witness statement, is that just where the points in the defence are proven?

Claim Number: *****
BETWEEN:
Vehicle Control Service Limited (Claimant)
vs
H****** (Defendant)
___________________________________________________________________________
Defence Skeleton Argument
I am ***********************, defendant in this matter.
The claim is denied on the following points;

1. The particulars of claim do not state a clear cause of action. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged contravention in the particulars of the claim as no notice to keeper PCN was served to the keeper at the the keepers address. The keeper contacted BW Legal by email 3 times requesting copies of the notice to keeper PCN and previous correspondence on the 9th March 2017, all received an automated reply stating that BW Legal would be in contact but BW Legal did not contact. The keeper called BW Legal on the 11th March 2017 due to receiving no reply to the 3 emails. BW Legal assured the keeper over the phone that the file would be put on hold until they could get copies of the notice to keeper PCN and previous correspondence. The keeper received a letter from BW Legal dated the 13th March 2017 confirming the file being put on hold and that BW Legal would be in contact. No further contact has been made from BW Legal to the keeper until the claim dated 17th May 2018

1.1 No attempt was made by the claimant to provide suitable information or evidence of this breach despite the defendants direct requests, three emails dated 9th March 2017 and one phone call dated 11th March 2017. A further request was made 13th March 2017 to Vehicle Control Services Limited which was denied.

2. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, due to passage time and the fact that there is no obligation to do so, the Defendant cannot say who was driving the car at the time of the alleged contravention. This was in November 2016, over 18 months ago and as no notice to keeper (postal PCN) was received, the Defendant has never been informed about the specific time that the alleged contravention occurred, so there was never an opportunity to identify the driver and now it is far too late. No assumption can be made and the car was insured to be driven by more than one named driver at the material time, as well as by any authorised friend or family member with a valid fully comprehensive insurance policy.

3. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the driver. The claim is for parking without purchasing a valid ticket but this has never been evidenced and mere ANPR images of a car at the entrance and exit, is nothing to do with the separate Pay & Display ticket machine system. Given the fact that these machine keypads do fail to record VRNs properly or fully (through no fault of victim drivers) the Claimant is put to strict proof of its claim, including evidence of all payments made at all machines onsite, around the material time.

3.1 The signage at Smyth Street - Wakefield Anpr Vccs Scheme Std (60-100) does not meet the requirements set by the IPC Code of Practice 'If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting'. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge. All signs at the sight are not illuminated and three are situated under overgrown trees obscuring any information. Only one sign has the terms and conditions of Excel and this is in very small writing quite far into the car park which would not be seen from the entrance. All other signs which are not clearly seen state you accept the terms and conditions of Excel but there is no explanation of what those terms and conditions are.

4. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case.

4.1 Neither the claim form, nor the signage state who the owner of the land is. According to Wakefield Council, the business rates are paid by Excel Parking Services, which is a different legal entity from this Claimant

4.2 The signage at Smyth Street - Wakefield Anpr Vcs Scheme Std (60-100) indicates that the car park is operated by Excel Parking and therefore any contract within this car park is with Excel Parking. The Defendant has not received any demand for payment from Excel Parking, nor has the claimant, Vehicle Control Services Limited, ever indicated that a contract has been transferred to them. The driver made no contract with the claimant and, as a registered keeper of the car, the Defendant has no liability to the claimant.

4.3 The signage states that Excel Parking Services LTD manage and control this car park. Excel parking services LTD are therefore acting as an agent on behalf of the landowner. As an agent, Excel Parking Services LTD has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name or on behalf of Vehicle Control Services Limited who would also being acting as an agent.

4.4 If Vehicle Control Services LTD deny acting as an agent , they are put to strict proof by disclosing the appropriate part of their contract with the landowner.

5. The particulars of the Claim state that. The Claimant also claims £60 contractual costs pursuant to the PCN terms and conditions.

5.1 Previous letters to the defendant from BW Legal have stated that the £60 claimed is for 'our Clients initial legal fees'.

5.2 Legal services cannot be claimed in the the small claims court as per CPR 27.14

6. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye V Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 (The Beavis Case) which was dependant upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage which formed a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park fee. None of this applies in this case.

7. The claim includes a sum of £50, described as 'legal representatives costs'. This work is done as part of the claimants everyday routine and no 'expert services' are involved. The Claimant is put to strict proof, by way of timesheet or otherwise, to show how this cost has been incurred.