Advice on Evidence - Letter of Claim

pademo

Hi

Thanks in advance for any advice/assistance.

I have previously used the site to help with strategy/replies etc. but at this point have not been able to find a previous specific example to help me along.

I am not looking for anyone to spell this out for me but would appreciate any help that can be provided.

I am currently at the stage where I have received a “Letter of Claim” dated 8 October. This includes the “Information Sheet”, “Reply” Form and “Income & Expenditure” Form. I have no intention of providing any of that information! The “Letter of Claim” is obviously the same as many others on the forum.

I have given some background below, but for clarity, I was not the driver and I have a witness who can confirm that.

My question is, I obviously need to once again reply robustly to this nonsense. I will repeat myself again that I was not the driver. However, do I need to provide the statement from my witness and in what form? At no point in the past have they asked to see this information. My witness is happy to help, but is reticent to provide their personal details to reside with these organisations unless absolutely necessary.

It is interesting to note that in their “Particulars of of Debt” they refer all the way through as if I was the driver stating “You were given a limited contractual licence”, “You breached the terms and conditions” etc.

I am not even convinced they are reading/understanding any of my correspondence and this will probably escalate further but I would like to make it as difficult for them as they have made it for me.

There are a couple of interesting facts that have come to light;

1. I have received from them a “copy” of a letter supposedly sent to me in 2016 (following an official complaint to them). This document bears no relation to the actual document I received bearing that date and appears to be have been created after the fact. For one, it refers to a letter I sent to them some two weeks AFTER the date of their “copy” letter. Also, the footer of the letter has their new address rather than the one they used at the time.

2. I am aware that the car park in question is operated and signage is by Excel. The NTK, paperwork and presumably any claim would be in the name of VCS. I presume they will show evidence they are allowed to bring a claim on behalf of Excel…


Background

This originates from a "Notice to Keeper" originally received from VCS in October 2015.

First thing to note is that I was not the driver of the vehicle. I have a witness that can place me at a different location for the whole of the period in question and many hours before and after. Their paperwork did not comply with and they have freely admitted in writing to not relying of POFA (but have mentioned the usual Elliot v Loake).

Secondly, I have vigorously replied to each and every letter from VCS and BW Legal (who took over in June 2016), stating my position as keeper not driver and pointing out their many failings in their dealing with me.

Things went quiet until August this year when I received a letter from VCS stating my “Account” had been passed to BW Legal. I replied informing them I found this confusing as they had already be corresponding since 2016 and repeated my argument that they have no cause of action. Nevertheless their only response as been to say that “whilst they note my position – their clients position remains unchanged and the balance is due in full”.

I now have the “Letter of Claim” mentioned above.

For information, I did raise complaints with;

1. IPC
Ruled against me. Surprise!

2. DVLA
Who denied any responsibility or problem and referred to VCS being a member of an accredited operator scheme with the IPC and referred me to them. It is interesting to note that they dealt with my complaint so shoddily that I had to raise this with the ombudsman who ruled in my favour over the way it was handled (but not the complaint itself) and I received £25 compensation.

I am unsurprised by the position of the DVLA who I am sure would miss the £1.4 million a Month revenue from the keeper requests of the private parking community. They claim this only covers “costs”. That seems rather a large cost for an automated service.

3. ICO
Although sympathetic, informed me that in their view, VCS and DVLA were operating within the law.

4. UKAS and CCAS
This was in relation to their ISO 9001 accreditation. UKAS are the accreditation body for the UK and CCAS are the company providing the accreditation assessment. UKAS confirmed their membership and CCAS promised to look into my concerns at the next assessment. Unsurprisingly I am still waiting to hear from them.

5. CSA
Although I worked through their code of practice and outlined 16 sections (with paragraph references and specific examples) where BW Legal were in breach of the code, none of these were upheld and the CSA ruled that no breach was found in any example.

6. SRA
Again, having worked through their “handbook” and code of conduct I listed at least a dozen examples of non-compliance. The SRA took 8 months to respond to the complaint and dismissed everything stating “we are satisfied that the firm are acting on instructions over legitimate claims” and will be taking “no disciplinary or regulatory action”.

Now, I am no legal expert, but I can read and understand information and (particularly in the case of CSA and SRA) I am baffled as to how the complaints could be dismissed in totality.

Let us hope that the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill currently proceeding through parliament brings about some change. However, perhaps I am biased and dismayed but there seems to be an awful lot of money being made all around by many organisations from these quasi-legal operators (I have seen a figure of £100m estimated). And how much influence do some of these have on the resulting policy?

nosferatu1001

Youve managed to use numbering repeated throughout so its hrd to respond properly. Try not to do that in future

No, they are not reading anything

Send them a copy of the letter you ACTUALLY received, and a copy of the fake, and highlight the differences. Invite their Solicitor(?) (I presume sol at this point) to explain why you shouldnt refer them to the SRA for a breach of the code of conduct.

Nope, they will porbably prattle on about VCS being "authorised", but in any claim you simply make them prove standing. You will have seen this all over the place with VCS!

System

What is the problem you'd like us to comment upon?

pademo

nosferatu1001 - Thanks for the quick response. I take the point on numbering. I did point out to them the strange nature of the fake but I doubt they took the point if they are not reading it! Are you suggesting this as a response to the "Letter of Claim" or a seperate letter? I have little faith in the SRA at this point - do you think they will take this seriously?


IamEmanresu - Sorry, I did rant on a little. The main point was about the evidence and responding to the "Letter of Claim". I did put the "My Question is" bit in bold, but I appreciate there is a lot to read!



Basically what would be the recommendation on responding to the "Letter of Claim" and is evidence (in the form of a witness) necessary at this point and if so, what form should it take? I want to make sure any evidence I supply is in the correct form so it can't be dismissed somehow.

System

Send in the Letter as drafted here and see what you get. Sometimes you get nothing and a vague argument. But 1 point to you as they would be in breach of the pre-allocation protocols.

If a Claim comes, you send broadly the same letter again and you may/may not get something. If nothing then they would be in breach of the overriding objectives.

You can also send a different letter, called a Subject Access Request, which goes to the Claimant and this will produce much of the evidence you need apart from the signs/their authority. Failing to reply to a SAR can get them closed down so they will reply to it.

The bits they tend to keep to themselves are the pics of the signs, the site map and the letter of authority but there is something called "self-help" which means that people will go to the site and take their own pics of the signs. They can also call the Local Council to check the occupiers or the Land Registry to check the ownership - which should be done anyway as often there is a flaw in the letter of authority.

So on balance, send the letters. See what you get. Fill in the rest

pademo

Thanks again for the feedback.



I presume you don't think including my evidence is necessary at this stage?

nosferatu1001

Iam - I disagree

I think pointing out their obvious fake would be of use here.
It wont stop them, but you can then point out to any court that you did x, y, z to inform them of their fake letter, and they ignored etc.

IT just looks better.

System

IT just looks better.

Agree but the point is not to complain about it but to show steps were taken under "self-help" or otherwise. It comes down to the court rules about narrowing the issues / proving points. It's not about scoring points.

nosferatu1001

Yes, hence the point about clarifying whether they are trying to mislead you, are just incompetent

Its not scoring points
Its pointing out that showing this evidence of their malfeasance to court is unliekly to go down well for them
And to discourage them from raising a claim in the first place.
It also shows that you have raised this early, and that they had X chances to explain themselves. THe more times they ignore it, the worst it looks for them.

pademo

Thanks to both of you again for the input. I will crack on with drafting the response to the "Letter of Claim".

I will also highlight their bogus letter again and use your line about the SRA code of conduct.
One question - they have given me 30 days to respond (to 12 November). Do I wait a while or get this done sooner rather than later?

System

The SRA are correct. Until it is judged in court, a claimant can do what they wish

I have given some background below, but for clarity, I was not the driver and I have a witness who can confirm that.

This is not evidence. It is a statement capable of being challenged in court which they may do but in many cases it is simply to hassle people. Which again they are entitled to do if they have an reasonable belief.