IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
BW Legal - No parking fine letters received
Options
Comments
-
Been to carpark today, it is run by Excel and signposted by Excel, therefore BW Legal should not be chasing the keeper for a debt on behalf of Vehicle Control Services Limited when the supposed parking contract was with Excel? Is this correct?
That is not correct. VCS/Excel can pass to debt collectors
It is the debt collector monkeys you ignore
VCS will then pass to BWLegal for a few chase ups and then maybe BWLegal issue proceedings.
Whether they win or not is up to you to provide a great defence0 -
BW Legal is the "solicitors"
VCSL is the client according to BW Legal.
The driver would have entered a contract with EXCEL not VCSL? So why would VSCL claim it was their contract the driver was in breach of?
Shouldn't the client be EXCEL? And shouldn't it of been EXCEL that allegedly sent the letters out to the keeper?
Sorry to be going on, just trying to get my head around it all.0 -
BW Legal is the "solicitors"
VCSL is the client according to BW Legal.
The driver would have entered a contract with EXCEL not VCSL? So why would VSCL claim it was their contract the driver was in breach of?
Shouldn't the client be EXCEL? And shouldn't it of been EXCEL that allegedly sent the letters out to the keeper?
Sorry to be going on, just trying to get my head around it all.
VCS and Excel are the same
Does the sign say " the creditor/contract is with....."
Just like this VCS sign
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/vehicle-control-services-discontinue.html0 -
VCS and Excel are the same
No they are not, they are different companies and the OP has a valid point. Like here:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/vcs-discontinue-another-albert-street.html
''Ms O filed a defence stating that she had purchased a valid ticket and that in any case the signage at the car park was in the name of Excel, not VCS. VCS therefore had no rights to bring a claim.''
It's a valid defence point if the signs were in Excel's name at the time.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »No they are not, they are different companies and the OP has a valid point. Like here:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/vcs-discontinue-another-albert-street.html
''Ms O filed a defence stating that she had purchased a valid ticket and that in any case the signage at the car park was in the name of Excel, not VCS. VCS therefore had no rights to bring a claim.''
It's a valid defence point if the signs were in Excel's name at the time.
So that one is an Excel sign stating a contract with Excel
But in this one, the sign is VCS with contract with Excel
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/vehicle-control-services-discontinue.html
OR, is it the other way around
Surely these are part of the SRS empire0 -
They are both part of the SRS empire but he and his lackeys can't offer a contract from one of SRS' companies, then sue using another company entirely, one that wasn't part of the alleged contract and never had a right to process the DVLA data either.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »They are both part of the SRS empire but he and his lackeys can't offer a contract from one of SRS' companies, then sue using another company entirely, one that wasn't part of the alleged contract and never had a right to process the DVLA data either.
I appreciate that
It certainly shows the sheer ignorance of BWLegal0 -
Been to the carpark tonight. There is one sign in really small writing that does actually have VCS in small print. However there are 3 others that say Excel (these are a fair distance from where the car was parked). The sign that is near the entrance is under a massive tree and not lit up and states Excel. The only sign that states VCS is the one on the ticket machine which is in the middle of the car park. This is the only sign that states the full terms and conditions. The others state you accept the terms and conditions of Excel but don't actually state them.
Added are images from google maps. Obviously these are from July 2016 and the tree has grown since then and also the PCN was for the evening and it was dark.
Found this in the IPC Code of Practice
'If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge.'
0 -
Been to the carpark tonight. There is one sign in really small writing that does actually have VCS in small print. However there are 3 others that say Excel (these are a fair distance from where the car was parked). The sign that is near the entrance is under a massive tree and not lit up and states Excel. The only sign that states VCS is the one on the ticket machine which is in the middle of the car park. This is the only sign that states the full terms and conditions. The others state you accept the terms and conditions of Excel but don't actually state them.
Added are images from google maps. Obviously these are from July 2016 and the tree has grown since then and also the PCN was for the evening and it was dark.
Found this in the IPC Code of Practice
'If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge.'
You have the perfect case against VCS
No doubt the brain dead BWLegal will continue regardless
You now need to build your defence to a point that the judge will laugh BWLegal out of court, if not BWLegal, one of their untrained and ridiculous representatives ..... or, just the thought of BWLegal in court will make the judge puke.
Look what happened to "rk4406" today
10p didnt register now rec'd court papers
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5572811
How stupid were BWLegal to take this as far as court
(even though they backed down and discontinued the case)
Even Simon Renshaw-Smith the man behind VCS and Excel must realise that the legals he uses are just wasting his money and we can all laugh at his expense0 -
I'm just flagging up two points for you if this matter proceeds.
1. In relation to whether one company (VCS) can sue someone relying on rights belonging to another related company (Excel), you should use the case ofEbbw Vale Urban DC v South Wales Traffic Area Licensing Authority [1951] 1 All ER 806. In the case, it was held that each entity in a group of companies (and their rights and obligations) is separate and distinct, and for one business entity to pass rights onto another (even where they are connected by common ownership or where one company is effectively owned by the other), those rights must be granted by way of a formal agreement. So without a formal agreement, the rights/obligations of one entity cannot become the rights/obligations of another entity, regardless of any connection/common ownership.
In other words, if VCS wants to sue on a contract and the contract was actually with Excel, there must be some sort of formal agreement between VCS-Excel passing the rights under the contract to VCS. Of course there won't be any such contract.
2. VCS is actually named on the one sign which contains all the terms and conditions. All the other signs refer to the terms and conditions, but refer to them as Excel's. Whilst it is arguable that the VCS sign makes it clear that the terms and conditions are VCS's, this certainly muddies the waters. For a contract to be formed, its terms must be clear, and that includes who you are making the contract with. You would argue that this was far from clear.
Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards