ELMS Legal (letter before claim)

Si_dean_2

Hi All,

So 4-5 months ago i started receiving letters again from DCBL for something dating back to 02nd April 2017!
This was in relation to a stopping fine at Liverpool airport in April 2017!!

Original letters where from (BW Legal) as VCS passed this onto them and After several episodes of “letter tennis “ back and two to BW Legal disputing the fine etc (and all recorded post and printed copys of each one) , until
now i’ve not heard anything bCk from them for a few years.

A few months back when i got my first letter from DCBL the “fine” has now gone upto £160

All the usual bla bla bla and even at the bottom of the 1st letter from DCBL it says this case is NOT subject to high court of bailiff action on their first letter …

Gathering these are just begging letters and going of advice of others I've ignored them then as of (27-09-21) ive now received a letter from 
ELMS legal titled LETTER BEFORE CLAIM and goes on to say more fees could be added etc and threatening with CCJ’s.

I have been through the sticky threads and you guys helped me on here with what to do / say back to these cowboys back in 2017 but As that original thread was sometime ago its now closed.


from what ive read / gathered, next step would be sending a letter to BWL requesting all documents that the intend to use in court, such as, but not limited to, the PCN and the signage that created the alleged contract….. however i already did this last time round and they sent me a copy of this (all saved) and i replied bAck to them. This was the last i heard from
them until the latest later a dew days ago from BW Legal stating letter before claim.

happy to upload copy of my last letter i sent to DCBL which subsequently seem
to stop them sending me anything for a few years……. Until now!

KeithP

As you were using a different username then, can you please point us towards your earlier thread?

Coupon-mad

Sounds normal for BW Legal and 2017 PCNs are not the oldest ones we deal with, by far.

Si_dean_2

Username is still the same its just my original thread that has gone as it was posted years back.

what do you guys suggest i do going forward.

im happy to upload the letter i sent them and my final letter i sent back to them after they replied?

D_P_Dance

 and threatening with CCJ’s.

If you think that this company is acting in a threatening way, compain here and copy your letter to your MP.

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/

Have they added a further £60?

patient_dream

VCS playing musical chairs again with legals

Elms are kissing cousins with VCS and you can now have some fun.  

Elms will have added a scam/fake charge and you can see here what the courts think of that ...
EXCEL being part of the SRS group

EXCEL v WILKINSON ..... claim struck out for ABUSE OF PROCESS.  DDJ Jackson who is now HHJ Jackson made this ruling.  
https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

And if ELMS are making false claims about a CCJ, report them to the SRA.
They have to win in court first and only then if you do not pay does a CCJ take place

It's false scaremongering.

Ask Elms to explain the fake add on

Si_dean_2

1^^^

2 ^^^

3 ^^^

4^^^

————————————

So ELMS didn't add on the extra bits, this has all boiled from DCBL 

VCS sent me the original one for £60
then after ignoring them they then passed it onto BW Legal who increased the “fine” (and who i did write letters to and they replied, with my last letter back to them seeming to have stopped any further communication for a while)

Now , a few days ago came a letter from ELMS legal.

Ive attached a copy of my letters i sent to BW legal which (parts 1&2) was asking for evidence of pictures / signage / agreement with land owners etc - which they responded to and then the letter i sent back to them (parts 3&4) after they sent me pictures.
following my last reply to them (this then stopped all communication for a few years) until
the most reason one as above from ELMS legal!

patient_dream

What happened in the past with DCBL and BWLegal is irrelevant.

VCS are instructing Elms now and so they start from scratch 
That is the actual cost of the ticket and then no doubt Elms will add on the fake.

I would send that letter to Elms, they are not the smartest firm ?

Last year they told an OP that they had a CCJ from an Elms case which was a lie.
In court the judge blasted them and the female rep for Elms was last seen screaming at someone on the phone and running out of court.

This is not a case of "pass the parcel"

Elms are not fit for purpose hence a complaint to the SRA

D_P_Dance

no doubt Elms will add on the fake. (£60-70)

If they do, read this and complain to your MP

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Si_dean_2

I will send that same last letter (parts 3&4) to ELMS and await their reply.

Is it worth me sending parts 1&2 or just 3&4 or both ?

Coupon-mad

That reply you sent is really old and waffles on about the PAP in a way we no longer recommend.