Bw legal/ vcs. Threat of court. PCN 25/10/2014

[Knoxvaux]

Hi

New to the forum so, hello.

 

I was issued a pcn by vcs on the 25/10/2014 for allegedly breaching t&c's on a privately operated access roads at Gallagher leisure park in scun thorpe . The charge payable was £60, which after ignoring on advice went up to £100.

 

After receiving several threatening letters from other debt collection agents like, zenith, Rossendales and drp, the last one being March 2015, I have now had 2 letters from bw legal some 15 months later claiming I must now pay the balance of £154.

 

As I continued to ignore the first letter they sent a second letter saying as I have not payed I have 10 days from the date of the letter, being 22nd July, failing that vcs have instructed them to commenced county court proceedings.

 

The next paragraph goes on to say "in the event our client issues county court proceedings and successful obtain a ccj, I may likely be liable for the balance, court fees ect.

 

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a tad worried now in fact I feel ill everytime I think about it.

 

I've had no correspondence with any of these companies therefore not admitted who was driving.

 

So any advice to what I should do? I'm so annoyed for taking advice to ignore and not writing to them sooner.

 

Thanks in advance for any responses.

[dx100uk]

you are one of 1000's that have the same

 

 

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-0964707606882478:652l7hswbgv&ie=UTF-8&q=bw+vcs&sa=Search+CAG#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=bw%20vcs&gsc.page=1

[zydeco]

As I continued to ignore the first letter they sent a second letter saying as I have not payed I have 10 days from the date of the letter, being 22nd July, failing that vcs have instructed them to commenced county court proceedings.

does it really say they "will" commence court action? or does it say they will refer back to their clients to recommend court action or some such nonsense?

does it refer to court procedure rules?

 

actually if you can post up the letter in pdf format with identifying details removed it would be easier to give advice.

and the original pcn/ntk

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

Firstly VCS are members of the IPC. This means they will always be biased in favour of the parking company. BW Legal are scraping the bottom of the barrel, picking up scraps wherever they can.

Ideally, you could do with visiting the site and getting photo's of the signs as they are usually non compliant. Then post them here along with any documents received (with ALL identifiable data removed)

 

The letters BWL are sending are misleading as while they do take court action in some cases, they don't always do so.

 

To be in line with Pre Action Protocols, they should issue a Letter Before Action/Claim giving you two weeks to respond. Often, they miss this stage and may just issue a claim. They are hoping that as you ignored them thus far, you will ignore a court claim, giving them a judgement in default.

 

If court papers or the LBA turn up, we have some excellent people here to assist.

[Knoxvaux]

does it really say they "will" commence court action? or does it say they will refer back to their clients to recommend court action or some such nonsense?

does it refer to court procedure rules?

 

actually if you can post up the letter in pdf format with identifying details removed it would be easier to give advice.

and the original pcn/ntk

 

I'll try and post it later if I can fathom out how to do it. But it is as worded above.

[Knoxvaux]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

Firstly VCS are members of the IPC. This means they will always be biased in favour of the parking company. BW Legal are scraping the bottom of the barrel, picking up scraps wherever they can.

Ideally, you could do with visiting the site and getting photo's of the signs as they are usually non compliant. Then post them here along with any documents received (with ALL identifiable data removed)

 

The letters BWL are sending are misleading as while they do take court action in some cases, they don't always do so.

 

To be in line with Pre Action Protocols, they should issue a Letter Before Action/Claim giving you two weeks to respond. Often, they miss this stage and may just issue a claim. They are hoping that as you ignored them thus far, you will ignore a court claim, giving them a judgement in default.

 

If court papers or the LBA turn up, we have some excellent people here to assist.

 

 

Thanks for your response. The only issue with getting pictures of the signs is it live 60 miles away from the site that the ticket was issued.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

Can you tell us where the site is please, in case we can find it on google? Or it's just possible that we have a member who lives near there and would help. No promises, but it's happened once or twice.

 

If you want to upload a document, click on the word upload for instructions.

 

HB

[Knoxvaux]

Hello there.

 

Can you tell us where the site is please, in case we can find it on google? Or it's just possible that we have a member who lives near there and would help. No promises, but it's happened once or twice.

 

If you want to upload a document, click on the word upload for instructions.

 

HB

 

I'll have a look what I can find. I know there was an article in the local paper about it with a picture of the signs.

[silverfox1961]

I have checked on Google Maps and the images are quite old. The site looked (at the time) like there were no parking restrictions. I could see no parking signs.

 

What I did notice was that there were few posts to attach signs to so it is likely, even after the signs were put up, that they could easily be missed.

[Knoxvaux]

 

Not sure if this will work.

[ericsbrother]

then there is no breach of contract because prohibition is not a contract or breach thereof,

 

 

it is trespass and only the landowner can sue for trespass and then only for damages that are a result of that trespass.

 

if you are tempted to respond just a short

"it is denied that any monies are due to your client as no contract was offered at the time".

 

Dont admit being the driver and dont feel like you need to say any more about why you say this,

it is just showing them that you arent burying your head in the sand

and nor are you going to pay them.

[Knoxvaux]

then there is no breach of contract because prohibition is not a contract or breach thereof,

 

 

it is trespass and only the landowner can sue for trespass and then only for damages that are a result of that trespass.

 

if you are tempted to respond just a short

"it is denied that any monies are due to your client as no contract was offered at the time".

 

Dont admit being the driver and dont feel like you need to say any more about why you say this,

it is just showing them that you arent burying your head in the sand

and nor are you going to pay them.

 

Would you recommend I respond them with that and in a letter or email.

[dx100uk]

yes that one line by letter.

 

 

as the threads in the link in post 2 I sent you say

[ericsbrother]

letter, always.

send an email and you will just receive hundreds of threatograms as they will cost them nothing to send out where a letter costs them real cash.

[Knoxvaux]

yes that one line by letter.

 

 

as the threads in the link in post 2 I sent you say

 

OK. Thanks.

[Knoxvaux]

Letter sent today to bw legal.

 

To whom it may concern

 

It is denied that any monies are owed to your client (vcs) as no contract was offered at the time.

 

Yours sincerely.

 

Any idea what happens now.

 

What they will respond with, time scale ect.

 

I only ask as I'm away on holiday in three weeks and I'll be out of the country.

Will they refere this back to vcs?

[ericsbrother]

they wont do anything in that time that will cause any sleepless nights. Enjoy your holiday

[Knoxvaux]

This is the last letter I received from bw legal.

 

Does it have any legs in it?

 

I also noticed that on the two letters that vcs sent me back in 2014 the wording had changed slightly.

The first one says " allegedly breaching t&c's on a privately operated access roads at Gallagher leisure park ".

 

The second one says " allegedly breaching t&c's in the privately operated car park at Gallagher leisure park".

 

Don't know if this makes much difference.

1.pdf

[silverfox1961]

It seems like they can't make up their minds. That letter is misleading as it states that if you get a CCJ, this will be entered against you. Wrong!

 

IF they take action and IF you lost you would have up to 28 days to pay before a judgement would be recorded against you. As for Beavis, that case was for one specific car park where Parking Eye paid the landowner to enforce parking. If this site is different in any way, Beavis will not apply.

 

As your letters have crossed in the post, wait for them to write back

[Knoxvaux]

For some reason it won't let me post a link,

but Just reading that Gallagher leisure park is no longer owned by them

and has been sold to some London business man.

 

 

Also the site is no longer controlled by vcs.

 

Does anybody know if this will this make any difference?

 

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/yorkshire/134242-

 

Oh it has now.

[ericsbrother]

In short, no because what was in place at the time is what counts.

 

 

As for the changig of the wording this may be important because the alleged breach

and location must be made clear on the original NTK.

 

 

If they have got this slightly wrong and had another pop at it then it will be something to raise as a defence

as it can be easier to show that no such breach occurred because they hadnt identified the land in question.

 

For some reason it won't let me post a link, but

Just reading that Gallagher leisure park is no longer owned by them and has been sold to some London business man. Also the site is no longer controlled by vcs.

 

Does anybody know if this will this make any difference?

[Knoxvaux]

These are the two vcs sent me. The wording has changed in the first paragraph on the second letter.

2.pdf

[silverfox1961]

OW! My neck!

 

In the first one you are on a road yet in the second one, you are in a car park! Just shows the level of competence with this company.

 

They haven't given you a second chance to appeal even though they have changed the wording. If a PPC makes a silly mistake, they should offer you the opportunity to appeal. The second letter specifically states that you are now out of time so no chance of appealing. In my opinion, if this did go to court, they would have a hard job saying which was which.

[Knoxvaux]

OW! My neck!

 

In the first one you are on a road yet in the second one, you are in a car park! Just shows the level of competence with this company.

 

They haven't given you a second chance to appeal even though they have changed the wording. If a PPC makes a silly mistake, they should offer you the opportunity to appeal. The second letter specifically states that you are now out of time so no chance of appealing. In my opinion, if this did go to court, they would have a hard job saying which was which.

 

 

Sorry. I uploaded it from my phone. Don't know why it comes out that way.

[dx100uk]

done them to PDF

if you do that it works