Ticket From VCS Brookshaw Sheffield

Lamilad

I agree with RobinofLoxley - I don't think what you've received is a letter before claim.

As per my previous question - have you received any letters from BW Legal?

RobinofLoxley

Lamilad wrote: »

As per my previous question - have you received any letters from BW Legal?

Also as my previous post can you show us images of the documents you have received so far i.e. NTK & NICP.

RichieBoy56

I tried to post up images without success. I'll try again.

https://postimg.org/gallery/34wixh3wa/

Coupon-mad

That 'Notice of Intended Court Proceedings' is a horribly non-compliant LBC.

It even says ''we may commence court proceedings without further notice to you'' so there's no doubting this is intended to scare you and intimidate you, and it's purporting to be a LBC but it is hopelessly non-compliant, look:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf

Read it...and read post #2 of the NEWBiES thread about replying to such a dodgy LBC.

RichieBoy56

Thanks again C-m. I've read through Newbies Threadd post #2 again and I cannot find anything better than the one I drafted in Post #18. Will that be OK?
Just thinking about VCS, so far they have issued a non-compliant NTD and LBC!!!

Coupon-mad

Yes, that's a very apt version of a reply. Looking through it I would just expand this line to protect yourself in case a Judge reads it later and thinks it admits driving, even though you were not:

2. whether you are pursuing me as driver or keeper? If the former, please provide your rationale and/or evidence for the assumption, bearing in mind my position is, and will remain at any subsequent court proceedings, that I was not the driver and am not obliged to supply the name of that party to the likes of Excel Parking Services. On the material date the driver was a female relative who will not be named, to protect her from your intimidating business model of threats and demands.

If the latter - pursuing me merely because I am the registered keeper - please answer these specific questions:
(a) are you relying upon the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, and if so
(b) do you contend that your Notice to Keeper is fully compliant, and if not
(c) on what basis are you harassing me, given the fact that I am not liable under any applicable law?

RobinofLoxley

RichieBoy56 wrote: »

This is my latest effort at an LBC rebuttal:

Dear VCS,


Date


Your Ref:xxxxxxxxxxx


Dear Sirs,


I am in receipt of your Notice of Intended Court Proceedings of xxxxxx 2017.


Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence you place reliance upon.


You must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.


Your notice lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide. You must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.


As you have a history of threatening court action you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter. As you must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that you are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced ' Notice of Intended Court Proceedings’ in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.


Nobody is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.


I require you to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:


1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether you are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether you are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which you assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form


If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until you have complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully

I don't understand what the paragraph in bold is about. Is it relevant as the words " in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client" " sound like they're aimed at solicitors.

RobinofLoxley

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, that's a very apt version of a reply. Looking through it I would just expand this line to protect yourself in case a Judge reads it later and thinks it admits driving, even though you were not:

“
2. whether you are pursuing me as driver or keeper? If the former, please provide your rationale and/or evidence for the assumption, bearing in mind my position is, and will remain at any subsequent court proceedings, that I was not the driver and am not obliged to supply the name of that party to the likes of [STRIKE]Excel Parking Services[/STRIKE]VCS. On the material date the driver was a female relative who will not be named, to protect her from your intimidating business model of threats and demands.

If the latter - pursuing me merely because I am the registered keeper - please answer these specific questions:
(a) are you relying upon the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, and if so
(b) do you contend that your Notice to Keeper is fully compliant, and if not
(c) on what basis are you harassing me, given the fact that I am not liable under any app0licable law?
”
I've amended the reference to Excel in paragraph 2 above to read VCS.

Re point (a), VCS Have already stated in their response to the appeal that they will be using POFA 2012 to pursue the keeper for the outstanding charge.

I would be tempted to also state to VCS something along the lines of :
Due to the fact there was a Notice to Driver issued at the time of the alleged contravention and they are seeking to use POFA 2012, they should not have applied to the DVLA for the Keeper's details and issued a Notice to Keeper until the period between 28 days and 56 days beginning from the day after the issue of the NTD. As the NTK was issued before the relevant period, it was issued too early and not as prescribed in Paragraphs 8 (4),(5) of POFA. Also the Notice to Driver fails to meet the requirements prescribed by Paragraph 7 of POFA. For these reasons VCS have not complied with the conditions described in Paragraph 6(1)(a) of POFA 2012 in that you have failed to give a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. Therefore you cannot transfer the liability for the charge to the Keeper.

RichieBoy56

VCS have completely ignored my rebuttal to their pseudo-LBC and I have now received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd.


hxxps://postimg.org/image/m8pz2vhxx/


Is it safe to ignore?

RichieBoy56

OK. I have read previous posts and realise that advice has already been given to ignore.