No NTK recieved, passed to BW legal 14 months after ticket

deadparrot123

[FONT=&quot]Hello I am after some advice regarding a fine from VCS

I have read the newbie sticky and searched for an answer on the forum but couldn't find a relevant thread (though that is likely due to my searching ability rather than there not being one).

I have received a letter from VCS (who are an IPC member) saying that my account has been passed to their legal team as I have failed to pay my balance. In the same envelope is a letter from BW legal that I owe a £100 PCN plus a £60 legal fee.

The PCN is from parking at the Flora street car park in Sheffield on 28th Jan 2017 (there are several posts on this forum for the same car park) as I was parked in an area that does not have marked bays, though it is very unclear that you shouldn't park there, and there are always cars parked in that area. When I saw the PCN I read this forum and took the advice to wait for the postal NTK before taking any action. I did not receive a NTK and subsequently forgot about the PCN over the following months. I have just received this letter dated 27th March 2018 and this is the only communication I have received regarding the issue, unfortunately due to some poor record keeping I haven't been able to find the original ticket that was attached to the windscreen.

My initial thoughts are that as I did not receive the NTK within the required timeframe then the PCN is invalid (is this right??). If this is the case can I just ignore the letter or should I draft a response stating that I did not receive the NTK and ask for copies of any correspondence they have sent (is that how do I prove they didn't send one?). Should I address any response to VCS or BW legal?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Any advice is greatly appreciated, please say if you need any more information.
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

My initial thoughts are that as I did not receive the NTK within the required timeframe then the PCN is invalid (is this right??)

Not ''invalid'' because if they know who was driving, this makes no difference, and would be 'valid' IYSWIM.

But 'not POFA Compliant' (in wording or in date, even if it was sent) so the PPC is unable to hold a registered keeper liable.

Respond to BW Legal, your case is the same as all the other BW Legal ones. Why not search the forum for the wirds:

Dear BW Legal yours faithfully and change the default search to SHOW POSTS

...to see LBC responses written recently. Other examples of LBC replies are in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

deadparrot123

Hi Coupon man. Thank you for your help, it is greatly appreciated.

I have found a suitable reponse letter in a recent post, this is the draft response to BW. Should I add/remove anything?


Dear Sir/Madam,

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of 27th March 2018. Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

Your client 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 letter 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 your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure to comply to the attention of the court, and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply, and when costs come to be considered.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October 2017 and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) 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 a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter Before Claim'; in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.
I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action;
2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper;
3. Whether they 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 they 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 Reply Form;

If your client does 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 your client has 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 your client to issue proceedings. Should your client 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

Coupon-mad

It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter Before Claim'; in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Is that true, did they not give you 30 days and not include these?

11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and Reply Form;

If they did, you can't send a letter saying they didn't.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas