URGENT Assistance.

robbiem0

I received a PCN outside Liverpool John Lennon airport back in January 2013. I read on this forum that the best this to do is ignore the demands, which I did and they seemed to go away as expected.
About 3 months back I received a letter from BW Legal who have obviously bought the case from VCS stating they're picking the case up. I googled this and took some advice from 'The Parking Prankster' and sent two e-mails to them:
One (in short) stating that I will admit trespass and offer them £11.00 (£1.00 for fee damages and £10.00 for admin costs)
The other was a complaint about VCS's code of conduct etc
Anyway, I have received a letter back from BW legal last week which included pages of photos of the signage around the airport attached to indicate the 'restricted zone' signs etc
They're basically them stating that they're not backing down and I need to respond within 7 days!
The parking prankster didn't respond to my e-mail asking for assistance and today I have recieved an out of office stating to raise this issue with you guys.

I just need a pointer on what to do next or is it a case of just paying the excessive fee?
Any quick assistance would be great as it's been a week since I received the letter now!

Cheers.

Robbie.

Coupon-mad

Welcome.

This issue was covered yesterday:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5632508

...and if ever VCS do try a small claim re this location, we have not yet lost a defended case v BW Legal.

yotmon

BW Legal won't have bought the case from VCS, they are acting for them.

Don't worry too much re' the 7 day deadline, i'm sure that if you don't pay them, they'll keep on giving you a further 7 days until you do !

As you will have found from research, vcs have never taken anyone to court involving this venue.

Umkomaas

Not one single LJLA case has gone to the small claims court, and should the first one do so there is a pledged fighting fund (PePiPoo) to provide expert legal support.

VCS wouldn't dare go to court at this location, because should a judge rule against them, the house of cards currently sheltering their golden goose would come tumbling down - as it would for their other airport sites and for other PPCs issuing airport 'no stopping' penalties. How popular would VCS be among its fellow highwaymen should this scam be blown out of the water?

Wonder why not one single 'no stopping' airport case has gone anywhere near a courtroom anywhere in the country?

waamo

robbiem0 wrote: »

I googled this and took some advice from 'The Parking Prankster' and sent two e-mails to them:
One (in short) stating that I will admit trespass and offer them £11.00 (£1.00 for fee damages and £10.00 for admin costs)
The other was a complaint about VCS's code of conduct etc
Anyway, I have received a letter back from BW legal last week which included pages of photos of the signage around the airport attached to indicate the 'restricted zone' signs etc

The parking prankster didn't respond to my e-mail asking for assistance and today I have recieved an out of office stating to raise this issue with you guys.

Cheers.

Robbie.

It seems you didn't really understand what ignore meant. It means no contact at all. You've contacted them admitting you trespassed. I'm sorry to say that really isn't a clever thing to do as essentially you've sent them a signed confession.

This will tell them you are wavering, nervous and don't know what your doing. They may well send you more scary letters than they do with most people as you look like a soft target.

Doing nothing is sometimes better than doing something. Next time you feel the urge to mail them sit on your hands till the urge goes away. Or find a dictionary and look up ignore or best of all post here first so we can tell you to ignore it. The last option is by far the best.

robbiem0

Thanks for the advice chaps.
So are you saying that I should just ignore this then? I've seen loads of posts from people saying do not ignore the letters you see.....just getting conflicting advice.

Johno100

robbiem0 wrote: »

Thanks for the advice chaps.
So are you saying that I should just ignore this then? I've seen loads of posts from people saying do not ignore the letters you see.....just getting conflicting advice.

This far down the road the correct advice is to ignore unless/until you receive court papers. If you were to receive a new ticket today then the circumstances thus the advice would be different.

Umkomaas

Unless you get a letter from BWL headed 'Letter Before Claim' or 'Letter Before County Court Claim' or 'Letter Before Action' or real court papers from the Northampton County Court bulk distribution centre, then anything else should just be filed (I hope you are retaining all correspondence) in a file titled 'No Further Action'.

Please don't ignore advice given by the forum. You are dealing with just one LJLA case. We deal with dozens of them on a very regular basis. Have a read of stalwart campaigner 'hexaflexagon's' epic, ongoing battle with VCS and Liverpool Council via the following links:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=98345&hl=hexaflexagon

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=98959&hl=hexaflexagon

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109259&hl=Hexaflexagon

After reading these you will know what to expect (or not expect) and will be better prepared to deal with this. You have to be in for the long run, nothing but a cheque will settle this instantly for you.

yotmon

But why is 'PP' advising to cough up £11.00 of your hard earned dosh to these roadside robbers ? Is there any chance of showing us the emails you sent to BWLegal, plus the advice received from Parking Prankster.

If all old ticket holders were to follow the above advice, then it would certainly prove to be a nice little earner for Vcs and could 'clear the decks' of hundreds if not thousands of unpaid tickets, which would remove the need for any historical court cases thus saving them legal fees.

I would say that VCs are aware that if they haven't been paid as yet for these old tickets, then it's a fair assumption that they are not going to receive payment. By throwing this type of advice into the pot puts a value back onto what they were probably seeing as a worthless stockpile of unpaid threats.

Edit. Just re-read your first post. I see that the 'PP' didn't reply to your emails. Could you tell us where the advice to pay Vcs £11.00 came from ?

robbiem0

Hi Yotmon - originally I did receive a reply from the PP, see below copy/paste from his original reply to me asking for advice:

From: Parking Prankster [mailto:prankster@parking-prankster.com]
Sent: 18 March 2017 06:23
To: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: BW Legal PCN assistance

Here is my generic information on this. Please get in touch if you have specific questions.
There are serious legal problems with these 'NO STOPPING' cases.

In brief:

1. For a contract to be in place there must be a meeting of minds, which means both parties need a chance to read and reflect on the contract. In parking case, this usually means 5 minutes are needed to search out signs, read them, the decide whether or not to accept the contract. However, they are trying to say you instantly contravened.

2. For a contract to be in place there must be consideration on both sides. They are specifically saying 'NO STOPPING', and so there is no offer on their side.

3. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014 lists information which must be included in a contract, and if it is not there, the contract is non-binding

4. The charge of £100 is a penalty and unfair consumer term. The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 lists circumstances where this does not apply. However, in No Stopping cases they do apply, so the charge is too large. Additionally, points 1 and 2 mean the charge is for trespass, where only actual losses may be charged.

Additional arguments apply if you were broken down (frustration of contract), you were not stopped but turning or waiting for traffic (no contravention occurred), or if the keeper was not the driver (only the driver is liable as keeper liability provisions not fulfilled). Please contact me for details.

In detail:
If your case goes to court contact me for a more detailed explanation of these. (See the end of my information for the latest status)



Next steps

All these mean that if it does go to court a competent unbiased judge will strike out the claim. Sadly, not all judges are competent, and some are biased. Your immediate concern therefore is to try and persuade BW Legal not to go to court.

BW Legal are bottom feeders, and operate on such low margins that they do not really want to get into any sort of dialogue. They make their money from the people who are scared by their letters and just pay up. I therefore advise a two pronged attach.

a) Threaten a counter claim, so if it does go to court and you win, then you make serious money. BW Legal are currently poor at defending these counterclaims although no doubt they will improve.

b) BW Legal sign up to a code of practice, but this is inconvenient to them so they ignore it. You can therefore take them to task with legitimate complaints which cost them time and money to resolve. For instance, a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman costs them £90 win or lose.

I would therefore send two emails:

Email 1

---

Dear BW Legal,

Please sent the following information to your client.

LETTER BEFORE CLAIM

You are asking for £100 for a breach of contract. No contract can exist as sufficient time is needed for a meeting of minds before a contract can be concluded, and there is no contractual offer on your part. Additionally any contract would fail the information requirements of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, and would therefore be non binding. Additionally, the charge of £100 would be a penalty and unfair consumer charge as you do not meet the signage requirements established in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

It is possible a trespass occurred and I have dealt with that elsewhere.

My name and address information (together with other information) is classified as personal data within the meaning of s1(1) of the Data Protections Act (DPA). If you continue to use this data by pursuing a contractually related debt then this will be misuse and harassment.

The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.

If you continue to misuse my personal data then I reserve the right to take legal action and issue a claim for £750 without further notice.

I am willing to use alternative dispute resolution to attempt to settle this dispute and suggest the Consumer Ombudsman is a suitable body.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE TO COSTS

It appears there may be a claim for trespass. Although this is denied, in a trespass case only actual damages are awarded, and if there are none, a nominal £1 is usually awarded. As no damages have occurred, I therefore offer £1 damages plus reasonable administration costs of £10 in full and final settlement of this matter. This offer is open for 14 days from the date of this email.

Please confirm you have forwarded this offer to your client, and convey their response to me.

Email 2 - edit this to remove complaints about paragraphs not in your letter

---

Dear BW Legal,

Complaints

Please send me a copy of your complaints procedure.

I wish to raise the following complaints, which I believe are failures to abide by the codes of conduct of the Credit Services Association (CSA), Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) and Financial Conduct Association (FCA), all of which you are members of or regulated by.

1) In your letter you state. "the balance due includes [...] our clients initial legal costs of £54.00 which are detailed in the car park terms and condition."

I do not believe this is true. Please therefore provide an explanation as to why you stated charges of £54 are detailed in the car park terms and conditions, and a full copy of those terms and conditions.

Providing false information is against the Credit Services Association code of practice.
1.y. communicate with customers fairly and transparently, and not intentionally mislead them
1.aa. treat customers fairly and not subject customers (or their authorised representatives) to aggressive practices, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether lawful or not
10.k only impose such costs and interest on customers as it is lawfully entitled

Additionally, the Solicitors code of practice clearly forbids adding a charge which is not legally recoverable:

~~~~~ URL HAD TO BE REMOVED ~~~~~
IB(11.8) demanding anything for yourself or on behalf of your client, that is not legally recoverable, such as when
you are instructed to collect a simple debt, demanding from the debtor the cost of the letter of claim
since it cannot be said at that stage that such a cost is legally recoverable;

BW Legal will know that it has been held countless times that when instructed to collect a simple debt, demanding from the debtor the debt recovery costs is taking unfair advantage since it cannot be said at that stage that such a cost is legally recoverable; particularly since those costs have not been substantiated at all. This is therefore taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee.


2) Your letter also makes a number of other false and misleading claims:

(1)“You should also note that if your claim has already been processed through an Independent Appeal Service (IAS) and an IAS has dismissed your appeal, then it is likely that a County Court will come to a similar conclusion and your defence will be unsuccessful.”

(2a) “If our client successfully obtains a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against you (which is likely)...
(2b) "Should we successfully obtain a County Court Judgment ("CCJ") this may have a detrimental effect on your future credit-worthiness and employability"
(2c) "In the event County Court proceedings are issued you may be liable for Court fees, further solicitors' costs and statutory interest . Should we successfully obtain a County Court Judgment ("CCJ") this may have a detrimental effect on your future creditworthiness and employability."
(2d) "In the event County Court proceedings are issued you will be liable for Court fees, further solicitors' costs and statutory interest . Should we successfully obtain a County Court Judgment ("CCJ") this may have a detrimental effect on your future creditworthiness and employability."

(3) "We wish to bring your attention to the case of ParkingEye 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 yo will have should the matter got to Court and will be relied upon, by our client, in any County Court proceedings"

Regarding statement (1) BW Legal know that the Independent Appeal Service (IAS) is a form of non-regulated and non-binding private arbitration service which is provided by a private entity who regularly brings claims for private parking companies (including BW Legal’s client) and whose decisions are therefore not independent nor impartial. BW Legal will also know that the IAS decisions will have no impact whatsoever on any County Court proceedings. BW Legal will also know that countless decisions reached by the IAS are not correct, found contrary to existing law and based on flawed assumptions. BW Legal’s assertion that it “is likely” that a County Court judge would come to a similar conclusion to the IAS is unfounded, unsubstantiated and plainly wrong, and it is made to coerce the addressee of BW Legal’s letter into paying their demand. This is therefore clearly taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee.

Regarding statement (2a) it is absolutely irresponsible, as well as unfounded and unsubstantiated, for BW Legal to assert that this is a likely scenario, and this assertion is again made to coerce the addressee of BW Legal’s letter into paying their demand. This is therefore again clearly taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee.

Regarding statement (2b) This is simply not true. You will be well aware that provided a judgment is settled within the allowed timescales, the CCJ will not appear on any record. This is therefore a deliberate attempt to mislead me

Regarding statement (2c) This is simply not true. You will be well aware that I will only be liable for these charges if your client wins the claim. You will also be well aware that provided a judgment is settled within the allowed timescales, the CCJ will not appear on any record. This is therefore a deliberate attempt to mislead me

Regarding statement (2c) This is simply not true. You will be well aware that I will only be liable for these charges if your client wins the claim. You will also be well aware that provided a judgment is settled within the allowed timescales, the CCJ will not appear on any record. This is therefore a deliberate attempt to mislead me


Regarding statement (3)
(a) Social media reports show that since the Supreme Court judgment the majority of properly contested hearings are won by motorists. This may be because parking companies have been encouraged to file specious claims.
(b) BW Legal have no idea what my ‘main defence’ is in this case
(c) The Beavis case was concerned only with the level of parking charges, and ruled that a charge of £85 was not a penalty even though the parking company had suffered no loss. The level of parking charges was never a major reason why parking claims were dismissed in the courts and is essentially a red herring. POPLAs statistics show that the main reason appeals are upheld are signage and ticket issues.
In any case, the Beavis case is not a silver bullet and BW Legal have not shown that in the particular circumstances of this case, Beavis is more favorable to themselves than the motorist. Beavis sets certain signage obligations on the operator and as these were not met, the charge reverts to a penalty. BW Legal have not shown these obligations were met.

There is therefore no basis for this statement and BW Legal have provided no evidence that this is true. This is a bullying attempt to discourage motorists from defending claims.

Statements (1), (2) and (3) all clearly take unfair advantage of the recipients lack of legal knowledge where they have not instructed a lawyer, by stating untruths and making unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims, and are all bullying attempts to discourage motorists from defending claims..

These are all violations of the CSA code of practice
1.y. communicate with customers fairly and transparently, and not intentionally mislead them
1.aa. treat customers fairly and not subject customers (or their authorised representatives) to aggressive practices, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether lawful or not
10.c not mislead customers as to the consequences or inevitability of consequences arising from any legal or bankruptcy action

Those assertions and statements are also clearly contrary to the SRA’s Code of Conduct 2011, Chapter 11: Relations with third parties, and particularly are covered under Indicative Behaviours IB(11.7) and IB(11.8).

Next Actions

As per the CSA code of practice I require you to cease collection activities while this complaint is investigated.

If your explanation is not sufficient I will escalate to the CSA/SRA/FCA as appropriate.

As per the CSA code of practice I require all communications to be by letter post and not by phone or email.


The Debt Is Denied

The debt is denied. In order for me to fully provide details why the debt is denied I require the following information, which I view as reasonable under the CSA code of practice, and also the information requirements for pre-action protocol.

~~~~~ URL HAD TO BE REMOVED ~~~~~

1.o. comply with all reasonable requests for information made by customers or their representatives, regulators, clients and creditors, whether statutory or not, and upon payment of the statutory fee if applicable

a) A copy of the parking charge notice(s)
b) A copy of the signage, if your client is claiming this creates a contract
c) A copy of the signage map, if your client is claiming a contract is created by performance
d) Whether your client considers they are acting as agent or principal
e) The name of the land owner, if not your client
f) Whether your client considers the charge is for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge
g) Whether your client is claiming keeper liability exists

Following receipt of this information I will provide my reasons for disputing the debt within 14 days. As per the CSA code of conduct I require you to cease collection activities until the dispute is resolved.

3.j. cease recovery activity whilst investigating a valid dispute

Alternative Debt Resolution

I am open to using alternative debt resolution. I suggest the Consumer Ombudsman as an appropriate body. The IAS has been well-documented to be a kangaroo court and would not be appropriate.

---
The letters sent by BW Legal usually contain one or more of the phrases above, which are breaches of their code of conduct and therefore can be complained about. For instance, many people are misled by their letters about getting a CCJ. The reality is that to get a CCJ they have to take you to court, win a hearing, and then you refuse to pay up. In practice a well defended hearing is just as likely to end in a win for the motorist, and of course most people would pay up in the timescales if they lose.

I have therefore written the above generic complaint letter. Remove any phrases which are not in your letter. If they have changed their letter formats again, email me a copy and I can advise on any misleading phrases.
You should also request information so that if they do file a claim you can defend it properly.

Once they reply, then file a complaint to the CSA (sample attached) (please contact me if I forgot to attach it!). Once that is over, file a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman (their complaints procedure will explain this). This costs them £90 win or lose.

---
Current small claims position

So far no-one using these tactics has got back to me to say BW Legal filed a claim against them.

So far BW Legal have not been known to file any cases for Liverpool Airport, despite sending threatening letters.
They have filed a few cases for Liverpool Business Park, perhaps to test the waters.

As of February 2017, the status is that they won one case and discontinued a second. In the case they won, the DDJ ruled that because there were 50+ signs a contract was created. This is now being appealed and it is hoped that Bargepole will be allowed to be the representative. The argument is that if it is impossible to read one sign while driving past then it does not matter that there are 50 - they are still impossible to read.

The case they discontinued filed these 2 videos as evidence
Approach to business park
~~~~~ URL HAD TO BE REMOVED ~~~~~


2 second rule
~~~~~ URL HAD TO BE REMOVED ~~~~~


~~~~~ URL HAD TO BE REMOVED ~~~~~


In the case they discontinued, the motorist had also filed a counterclaim for a data protection breach. The parking company forgot to turn up for the counterclaim hearing and so lost by default, costing them £250 + costs but it is likely they would have lost anyway.

It is therefore well worth either filing a counterclaim, or even biting the bullet and filing a claim before they do. This puts you on the front foot. if this is of interest, get in touch for the latest suggested letter before claim and actual claim wording.


Alex
Parking Prankster

If I have helped you overturn an unjust parking ticket, please consider a donation of up to £5
~~~~~ URL HAD TO BE REMOVED ~~~~~
This goes to help fund the site, transcripts, and travel costs

Transcripts which may help your case
~~~~~ URL HAD TO BE REMOVED ~~~~~

BMPA Lay Representative, all regions
~~~~~ URL HAD TO BE REMOVED ~~~~~

My book on the small claims process might help
~~~~~ URL HAD TO BE REMOVED ~~~~~

If you have a CCJ from ParkingEye, check this site
~~~~~ URL HAD TO BE REMOVED ~~~~~

Quentin

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you.

You need to edit out your name from this correspondence from Alex!!