Is it too late to ignore my fine after losing the IAS appeal process?

Snakes_Belly

Hello Ian,

I also received a similar letter yesterday. It states that they are disappointed that I have not paid the fine. Says that I don't stand much chance of a win in court. Mentions the Beavis case and basically says that the sky will fall in if I don't pay.

I was of the impression that under the new protocol they had to send one of these sets of forms before any court proceedings could be instigated. You have so long to return the forms and they cannot start court proceedings until a certain time after they have received the forms back. I thought that the two parties to the dispute had to try to work it out before it came to court and that the judge would have expected this to happen. They seem to have ignored the protocol completely. I don't know whether it's best to point this out or leave it so it's something else to use against them? I guess that this is something that we can use against them anyway. They may be trying to milk what they can out of the existing cases on the basis that people are not that familiar with the changes. If you are considering paying (I am not saying that you should) you could make an offer and if they don't accept then it would look better for you if it goes to court because you have tried to resolve the dispute.

I am only a lay person and I am just thinking about my next step. I have until the 26th October to pay up but under the protocol it would be longer. At the moment I feel I would rather donate £100.00 into the local food bank than pay this company any money.

Not trying to hijack your thread but our experiences seem very parallel.

EddieRonald64

Hey, sounds very similar so hijack away! We can go through it together.

My thoughts are the same as yours, don't point it out and use it against them or show them that I know enough about the law that they won't bother going that far. I love, by the way, how all the fear words in the letter are put in bold... "if we successfully obtain a COUNTY COURT JUDGEMENT" (I even heard a dum-dum-dum sound effect in my head when I read it).

I'm going to wait a little and reply, mentioning about the new legislation and the sign on the ticket machine which I doubt followed the correct regulations. I'd consider paying if it was a lower amount, not £100

EddieRonald64

Hey all, just a quick update on what's going on - primarily for those who may stumble across this thread and are wondering what to do (and didn't read the newbie guide like I should have).

I've just received my 5th collection letter and the whole letter chain is becoming quite comical. It went:

8/11/17 DRP - standard letter asking for payment of £160
23/11/17 DRP - notice of intended court action if I don't pay £160
8/12/17 DRP - reduced settlement offer of £136 to avoid court action (a whole £24, wow!)
28/12/17 Zenith - discounted settlement offer of £79.99 "...this will be our only offer.."
16/1/17 Zenith - 14 days to pay at the discounted rate to avoid court action (hmm, what happened to DRP?)

I'll be honest, I'm still in two minds as the reduced offer if appealing to stop the hassle but at the same time, I'm curious to ride it out - if only to see what the next offer brings - a small part of me is enjoying the process. The latest letter read like a special offer: "We would urge you to act now to take advantage of our discounted settlement offer" - not the Black Friday deal I was hoping for! I think i'm going to hold out.

Thanks to everyone on the MSE forum for putting my mind at ease
Will update if I get a court summons

Coupon-mad

16/1/17 Zenith - 14 days to pay at the discounted rate to avoid court action (hmm, what happened to DRP?)

Nothing, it is still DRP:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3829727

Vehicle Control Services are not prolific in court, and if they try, they would use the firm 'BW Legal', who we have helped literally HUNDREDS of posters to beat over the past year, 99% win rate! Check out any BW Legal, Excel or VCS defence thread and you find 'we won!' posted all over the forum, consistently.

Yours would be the same, and no risk of a CCJ as long as you don't ignore court papers.

EddieRonald64

Hi all, I received a 'letter before claim' today from VCS. Reading up on it, in the newbies guide, it says to respond to these letters. However, there's nothing from BW Legal or Gladstone or any other solicitors which I would have expected. The letter from VCS does state that 'this matter has now been passed to our legal department in order to recover the sum of...' however, later it states 'should the outstanding balance not be settled by X, we will commence legal proceedings.'

Is this still at the collections/scare tactics phase where I can safely ignore it, or should I reply to VCS?

Thanks

Redx

you should reply to the VCS letter before claim

if it meets the current guidelines then respond accordingly

if not, point out their error in not complying by reading and adapting the daniel san LBC reply or any recent approved reply inside other recent threads on this forum

VCS do not have to use a solicitors, they can do it themselves, in house, if they so wish

kryten3000

Spoiler alert - it's not a compliant LBC.

Coupon-mad

This is no different than all the other VCS or Excel threads where they do not use BW Legal. You only need to search the forum for what you've got (e.g. the letter heading) and it's all been discussed before:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73949672#Comment_73949672

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74050092#Comment_74050092

We bet they only gave you 14 days and didn't enclose the required PAP reply forms. You have more than 14 days and if they say not, they've breached the new PAP - if they are saying that court action can follow 'without further communication'.

Search the forum for 'immune 1st October' to find a letter suitable for a parking firm who have threatened court action with only 14 days notice, or adapt one from the ones I found - that you could also have found - by searching.

If they do eventually start a claim, you have a defence, and posters here win almost every case:

I thought I had paid for correct parking because there was a dodgy sign stuck on the private payment metre that stated: "tickets could be purchased at either machine" with an arrow pointing in the direction of the council-owned car park.

beamerguy

Redx wrote: »

VCS do not have to use a solicitors, they can do it themselves, in house, if they so wish

I seem to recall when Simon Renshaw-Smith did a DIY,
and got trashed in court and then threw his toys out of
his pram
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2150607/Landmark-parking-case-means-thousands-overturn-fines.html

(For newbies) Renshaw-Smith = EXCEL AND VCS

If it is a DIY job, maybe the boy is fed up with BWLegal

Excuse me folks, I feel like a Elliot v Loake moment coming on

EddieRonald64

Hi again,

I've just drafted my response to the PPC's LBC, and am about to post it - thank you all for the templates and information you've shared.

In the LBC, they have given me the required 30 days to reply and they have enclosed the correct documents - annex 1 and 2 - but they have not included all of the required information laid out in the pre-action protocol for debt claims. They've included some of the information in paragraph 3 but not all of it. There were no other documents of proof provided, covered in paragraph 5.1 and 5.2 so I'm requesting those in my response.

I'm quite confused as to how to proceed; is it advised that I complete and send copies of annex 1 and 2, with my reponse, to remain compliant, or does the fact that they haven't complied 100% with the PAP and the practice direction, mean I don't have to. It's quite daunting for someone as new to this as me and the thought of paying, purely to stop the communications, has been playing on the back of my mind, especially after the various debt collection letters and the hours I've put into drafting replies and researching the law. I'm still adamant, however, that the charges they're demanding are totally unjust.

Thanks