BW legal & VCS letter

Declan_Williams

Hello,
This is my first post on this forum, though I have read through many questions and replies.
I am looking for thoughts on the following set of circumstances.
In July 2016 we visited Newcastle to attend our son's university graduation. We booked overnight accommodation through airbnb which included covered private parking nearby. On arrival we collected the key fob from the flat and used it to gain access to the car park. Inside the car park were several signs that stated a permit must be displayed. No permit had been issued to us with the fob.
Luckily there was a parking attendant there. My wife explained where we were staying and that we didn't have a permit. He consulted his machine and advised her where to park. She confirmed with him that no ticket would be issued. When we returned to the vehicle the following day, a parking charge notice was attached to the windscreen. We contacted the owner of the property we were staying in (run as part of a larger company) who advised us not to worry, there was no need for a permit to be displayed by us and it would be sorted out as it should not have been issued.
We thought nothing more of it until we started to receive letters from DRP stating we owed money for the parking notice plus fees etc. We contacted both VCS (who manage the car park) and DRP outlining the circumstances. DRP stated they had considered these, investigated the matter fully and concluded in their own favour (no surprise there!)
A few further communications went back and forth, On each occasion they used a different name and seemed unsighted on previous replies.
The owner of the premises contacted DRP on our behalf stating that several complaints had been made to VCS regarding the issue of parking notices, and included a copy of an email (unfortunately the copy we have seen is undated) from VCS to her stating that parking permits were not currently being issued as they were in negotiations over new management. She offered to provide DRP with her company solicitor details to resolve the issue (which they appear to have not taken up).
In the end we stopped replying to them.
Now we have a letter from BW legal and VCS (in the same envelope dated the same date demanding that we pay £160 to settle the matter (which we have no intention of doing).
We did search airbnb feedback and found another person who had stayed at a round the same time as us, received a parking charge notice and apparently had it cancelled.
Any suggestions on how we should reply to VCS / BW legal at this stage?

The_Deep

From what you have told us, they would struggle in court

Any suggestions on how we should reply to VCS / BW legal at this stage? .

Refer them to Arkell v Pressdram.

System

He consulted his machine and advised her where to park.

Defence of promissory estoppel.

from VCS to her stating that parking permits were not currently being issued as they were in negotiations over new management.

Defence based on impossibility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility)

Refer them to Arkell v Pressdram.

+1 after mentioning the above

Coupon-mad

Examples of how to respond to a letter before claim (if the BW Legal letter is pretending to be one) are all over other threads. Here's one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73316565#Comment_73316565

HTH - you would of course need to edit/change it from ''Gladstones'', and add a paragraph explaining that the driver spoke to the employee who indicated they could park and would not get a PCN (NOT SAYING WHO WAS DRIVING!!) and pointing out the doctrine if promissory estoppel.

HeatonGuy

Declan_Williams wrote: »

Any suggestions on how we should reply to VCS / BW legal at this stage?

Ask them to stop writing to you , and contact the driver, who they must identify from their own records. :beer:

In all seriousness, CM's guidance here is good. Sending a solid reply makes it clear that you expect compliance with the pre-action protocol, and this will assist you if it goes to court.

Declan_Williams

Ok, I've looked at the letter again following the examples of letter before claim. I don't think we are at that stage yet. It does not claim to be such a letter, but the wording they use is
"As you have failed to make a payment or raise an appeal within 28 days from the date of the PCN, the balance due remains outstanding and we require payment in full within 16 days from the date of this letter. If you fail to make payment or provide reasons for non payment within the specified timeframe, we will seek our client's instructions to commence legal proceedings against you in the form of a county court claim form in the county court"

It goes on to say how we can upload data to their portal to dispute etc and how they are keen to work with us and have a helpful team we can speak to etc (I don't believe a word of that).

As for the 16 days to respond. The letters are dated 26th October and didn't arrive until 31st.

Is this a poor effort at letter before claim? Or simply a prelude to more communication?

I like the Arkell v Pressdram example, but may hold that one back for now!

mr.markjames7

I have also received a letter today from BW Legal.

Hi

I have been reading on your forum regarding BW Legal. I have been sent a letter to say I stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited. I pulled over to let my Mrs and the dog out of the car but didn't park up. I can see that they thought I was dropping someone off at the airport but as far as I can remember they would both need a passport for that and not sure if my dog would be allowed on a commercial flight anyway.

I have never been in touch regarding this as I thought it was a scam and I had been informed by several people to just ignore it but now after several months have past I find it a bit concerning. I!was driving a company vehicle at the time and no longer work for that company. Even though my previous company could trace this back to me should I be concerned or is it a scam?

The letter says 'We have been instructed by Vehicle Control Limited in relation to the Balance Due for the above PCN.

'For the avoidance of doubt, the Balance Due includes £100 PCN charge plus our clients initial legal costs of £60, which are detailed in the car parks terms and conditions.

It says if I don't pay within 16 days they will commence legal proceedings. The letter is dated the 19th October and it came through the post 1st November leaving me 4 days.

Any response would be great.

Edna_Basher

Hi Mr. MJ

In order for you to make the best use of the advice from this Forum and to avoid other threads becoming messy and confused, you will need to start your own thread.

Also, you need to bear in mind that VCS are likely to be trawling this Board for snippets of information. If you have used your real name as your username you should delete the contents of your last post and set up a new account with a different username before starting a new thread.

Declan_Williams

Ok, the time has come to reply.
Firstly, having kept reading I am convinced what we have received is not a letter before claim. We appear to be too early in the process, with a final demand letter to come yet too.

I have noted the content of LBC replies and the particular letter on DS90s thread. I will hold these back for the latter stages.

I have continued trying to get co-operation from the company we rented the accommodation from and continue to get half answers or avoidance. We were told that they had spoken to BW legal and were sending them a copy of their lease to finally resolve the matter. Our request to be copied in to communication has been ignored (or it hasn't taken place as all we get now are fob off messages).

Am I giving too much away at this stage if I reply as follows?

I am in receipt of your letter dated 26th October 2017.
I am responding as the keeper of the vehicle mentioned in the correspondence.
Firstly I would like to advise you that the issue of the relevant charge notice was in error, as explained fully in previous communication with VCS and DRP. Should this matter make it to the County Court it will be vigorously defended.
I understand that the Landholder, (Laura, representing Quality Estates) has been in touch with you to confirm that the parking space is leased by them and did not require a permit. In fact it was impossible to do so as VCS were not issuing permits at the time (confirmed in an email from Holly Jones at VCS dated ????????)
Secondly, as previously outlined, an employee of VCS (parking attendant), aware that no permit was available advised where to park and confirmed that no ticket would be issued. As you will be aware, the driver of the vehicle is entitled legally to rely on this information, even if it is to their detriment.

I therefore request that you cease and desist further communication regarding this matter except to confirm that VCS have cancelled the unjust PCN.


Obviously I'm still trying to get the date of the email mentioned

Declan_Williams

OK, I've updated the e-mail we are sending to this - sorry it's all bitty but trying to do this while managing childcare, real life etc.

I am in receipt of your letter dated 26th October 2017.
I am responding as the keeper of the vehicle mentioned in the correspondence.
I would like to advise you that the parking charge notice was issued in error, as explained fully in previous communication with VCS and DRP. Should this matter make it to the County Court it will be vigorously defended.
I now require you to cease and desist further communication as the Landholder, (Laura, representing Quality Estates) has been in touch with you to confirm that the parking space used is leased by them and did not require a permit on the day in question. As such you must obey the Quality Estate’s wishes and cannot threaten any possible legal action that has a hope of succeeding.
Further to this it was impossible to display a permit as VCS were not issuing permits at the time (confirmed in an email from Holly Jones at VCS dated 9th August 2016) sent to Laura and Chris at Quality Estates.
Additionally as outlined in previous communication, an employee of VCS (parking attendant), aware that no permit was available, advised the driver where to park and confirmed that no ticket would be issued. As you will be aware, the driver of the vehicle is entitled legally to rely on this information, even if it is to their detriment (see the doctrine of promissory estopple).
This is causing significant distress and harassment, and yourselves and VCS lack cause to continue processing my data further.
You now have 21 days to cease processing my data, except to deal with this complaint, and you must treat this as a section 10 notice under the Data Protection Act 1998. In giving this notice I bring your attention to the harassment case of Ferguson vs British Gas.