DW Legal PCN - do I respond again now?

Macca7

Hi guys. I hope I'm posting appropriately about this. I've been following the advice throughout my ticketing saga and read the newbies thread, but the terminology is confusing me at this point and I don't want to respond prematurely.

BW Legal have written to me again with something titled "Letter Of Claim". It states that Vehicle Control Service ltd have instructed them to commence legal action by issuing a "Claim" against me in the County Court. They say that if i dont pay or respond within a set timescale (it was a month from the letter being received not 14 days as mentioned in some threads), then they are "instructed to issue a Claim against you in the County Court without further notice". They then give an estimated claim cost if it goes to court.

This is all in relation to stopping the car in what turned out to be a no stopping zone for approximately 20 seconds after we heard a rattling noise under the car. We took it straight to the garage and I have proof that a significant fault was found that day.

I appealed the initial PCN before reading this forum as I was sure they'd see sense and drop the fine. I made the stupid mistake of naming the driver, though they've never mentioned them again. To my shock (before reading about them) they rejected the appeal and I've been reading this forum since.

I've been harassed by letters and almost daily calls/voicemails from DW Legal since, all of which ive ignored until now. It genuinely has caused me a lot of upset and anxiety.

This latest letter wants me to say if I agree I owe the debt, agree I owe some of it, or dispute the debt. I'm determined to go all the way with this as they are cretins in my eyes who need challenging. My question today is: Do I respond NOW, or wait for them to issue the claim against me in the County Court "without further notice" (I can't be sure if I'm at the right stage to now respond from the newbies thread!!).

Thanks for any help you guys can provide.

Macca

The_Deep

IMO if they took this to court they would crash and burn. Of course you should stop if you hear such noises, what on earth is the PPC thinking.

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 House of Commons recently

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

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

KeithP

You should respond to the Letter of Claim.

Do not use their forms.

Guidance on exactly how to respond can be found at the beginning of post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Macca7

Thanks KeithP. I thought it might be the Letter Of Claim that was being referred to in the sticky post, but it's name and the response time seemed slightly different so just wanted to check.

Redx

including the forms and the 30 day notice period indicates that it is a letter of claim (this is due to the new protocols which came in 12 months ago - the PaP)

Macca7

Thanks Redx. I'll tick the right box tomorrow and send it off. Time to start to pull my evidence together then. I feel so resentful towards them. Can't say I'm looking forward to my date in court :-(

KeithP

Macca7 wrote: »

Thanks Redx. I'll tick the right box tomorrow and send it off. Time to start to pull my evidence together then. I feel so resentful towards them. Can't say I'm looking forward to my date in court :-(

Tick the right box?

Are you planning on using their forms?

Redx

any reply should be a printed letter of your own, no ticking any boxes because as you were told earlier, DO NOT FILL IN THEIR FORMS

you dont seem to realise that those PaP apply to all kinds of court claims, not just parking matters. it is not mandatory to fill them in, but its a GOOD IDEA to send back an LBC rebuttal and to make it bespoke and dont give them your financial information

Macca7

I was only going to tick the "dispute the claim" box, then not include "even a full stop more". Should I not even do that? I need to read the sticky again in the morning as my head is all over the place with it all. Can't remember who I need to provide my evidence statement to now. I'll read again.

Wife wants me to pay up as it keeps causing so much stress every time it pops up again. I've obviously insisted we don't.

Macca7

Thanks Redx.

Macca7

Hi guys. Just spent my Sunday trying to get this right. Please could you have a look for me and send me your thoughts? It is very much appreciated...




I am writing in response to your “Letter of Claim” relating to the account number - *****. You will know that this relates to a Parking Charge Notice that I received from Vehicle Control Services. I hereby state that I dispute the charge and any associated “debt” that has been attributed to me by the company named, as I also promptly did within the appropriate timescales, and by the requested means, at the time of receiving the PCN.


I am personally disgusted by the Letter of Claim and accompanying forms that you recently sent to me. I was astonished that your letter states that an “income & expenditure form” requires completing and that you have included this for me to complete. This is totally misleading and is not information that you are entitled to receive. I DO NOT accept the “charge” or the “debt”.


Having received the Letter of Claim, it clearly contains insufficient detail of the claim for me to proceed in providing a full defence and this detail will therefore be required. I will however take this opportunity to explain my specific reasons for strongly contesting the “charge” and “debt” relating to this case in further detail. Firstly, here are the broader issues that I have with the information that I have received…


You state that the legal basis of the claim is due to “breach of contract”. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. I have received no evidence from Vehicle Control Services or you, to show me the contract that I am said to be in breach of. I am however aware that other Claimants have successfully contested that the terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the small font would be unable to do so easily. It is therefore denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. Having revisited the site in a vehicle and on foot, I am stunned that the Claimant feels that the signage is appropriate notice for a driver passing within the designated speed limit for that road.


I will now explain the more specific details of my reasoning for contesting this hideous “charge” and claim of debt…


I confirmed after the PCN was received that the car WAS brought to a stop as is being claimed; however, this action was only taken to try to ensure the safety of the driver and any other road users or pedestrians. As explained in my response to Vehicle Control Services, a noise was heard from the car and therefore the car was briefly stopped (THE PHOTOS ON THE PCN SUGGEST THAT THIS WAS FOR 34 SECONDS) to assess the noise and to determine whether or not it was safe to drive on. The driver assessed that the car could be safely driven to the nearest garage for further assessment by a qualified person. I provided evidence of the mechanical inspection report completed that same morning, which discovered the fault to the underside of the vehicle and provided a quote of £871.79 for the work to be completed by them.


Having provided the information described above to Vehicle Control Services I was stunned to read that they were upholding the “charge” as they simply insisted the vehicle should not have stopped in that area. Stopping the car did not put anyone at risk and did not cause any harm, or incur any cost to any other party. I reiterate that the car was only stopped to ensure the safety of the driver and others. I am interested to know if it would be permitted for a car to be stopped in ANY other circumstances. Would it be OK to stop for a few seconds (as the driver did) if the emergency services required room to pass? Would it be OK to stop for a few seconds (as the driver did) if an elderly or physically impaired pedestrian was crossing the road? Would it be OK to stop (as the driver did) if the driver was experiencing an asthma or hypoglycaemic attack? Would it be OK to stop for a few seconds (as the driver did) if the driver collided with a child who now required medical attention? I am keen for you to answer these questions for me. The answer should be “Yes” to all; though the reality appears to be “Yes, unless a private rogue ticketing company have acquired the rights to unjustly and exorbitantly fine law abiding and innocent road users.


In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.


I am fully aware that BW Legal, Vehicle Control Services and other companies have been discussed in Parliamentary debates, where MPs unanimously criticised the practices that I am now being subjected to. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines and aggressive demands for payment have been said to have no place in the 21st century and we all await the day when this type of activity is finally stopped. With that in mind I need you to know the personal cost that this has already had upon me and my family.


Me and my family are law abiding people. When we received the charge we assumed that we could explain what happened and VCS would fully understand and rightly drop the claim. Since they failed to do that we have constantly worried about what we should do. I knew that paying £100 due to stopping for a few seconds in the interest of safety was not an option. We have since suffered unwarranted harassment and your client is causing significant distress to me and my family. I have received threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money and have been receiving calls and voicemail messages on what feels like an almost daily basis, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Every time a letter or call arrives the feeling of dread and worry returns. It is hard for me to explain to you how difficult this has been. I work in the NHS caring for children who often have catastrophic conditions and illnesses, yet even when I am sat with these children and their families, I am being chased with calls to my mobile telephone during work hours. It was last week on Mental Health Awareness Day when I was first trying to formulate this response to you having received yet another voicemail message. I’m sorry to say that I have been plagued with anxiety related problems over recent months and I am in no doubt at all that this case has played a significant part in triggering the difficulties that I have suffered.


In addition to the distress that has been caused to me, hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money. Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible.


If your client decides to pursue the claim against me despite the information that I have provided in this letter, then I require them to comply with their 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 car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)


5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim


6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver


7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed


8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)


9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.


I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).


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.