Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

VCS/ELMS Spycar PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - Liverpool Airport - No Stopping


Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

Received an Invoice from Vehicle Control Solutions for allegedly stopping in a no-stopping area on a private access road at Liverpool Airport - I was not the driver of the vehicle.

 

I've read all the posts concerning VCS and no-stopping on private land at the airport and my understanding is I should ignore everything from them until their lawyers get involved. At that stage I should send them something along these lines...

 

"Dear VCS,

 

In reply to your letter sent on xx/xx/2018.

 

There has been no breach of any contractual agreement therefore I owe you nothing.

 

Regards"

 

If it then proceeds to court I should come back here for further advice. Have I got that all right or have I missed anything?

 

Thanks in advance

 

 

1 Date of the infringement 16/01/2018

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] posted: 19/01/2018

 

3 Date received: 23/01/18.

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] No

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?} No

 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] N/A

 

7 Who is the parking company? Vehicle Control Services

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Liverpool John Lennon airport.

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IPC

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's pretty much bang on.

 

These particular bandits are members of the IPC, so it's really not worth bothering with until you get a Letter Before Action (or whatever it's called this week) which usually comes from Gladrags or BWL.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the advice about ignoring up until the point lawyers get involved

 

but would suggest that at that juncture you send a much stronger worded letter saying they know that there has been no breach of contract because there wasnt one offered to start off with,

 

that this has been proven many times before and they are merely trying to obtain money by deception

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Good Morning,

 

As promised an update of how this is progressing...

 

Today I received 2 letters (attached), apologies for the poor quality, there's a problem with my phone's camera. I think there a legible though.

 

The first is from Vehicle Control Services Ltd. telling me that as I have failed to pay them they have now handed it over to their legal representatives, BW Legal.

 

The second letter (in the same envelope - not sure if that is relevant or not) is from BW Legal themselves saying I need to pay, otherwise they may commence legal proceedings.

 

So now I write to them saying something along the lines of:

 

"Dear BW Legal,

 

Reference: xxxxxxxxx

 

In reply to your letter sent on 15/03/2018.

 

As you are aware, there has been no breach of contract between myself and VCS because there wasn't one offered to start with, therefore I owe nothing.

 

I would further point out that this has been proven many times before which suggests you are merely trying to obtain money by deception.

 

Regards"

 

Is the wording strong enough/too strong? Any suggestions of changes to make would be greatly appreciated.

 

I've made a small donation to the site today because I really appreciate all the help and advice I've received.

 

Many thanks

 

 

VCS to BWletter + bw chase letter march 2018.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you send that initial response to VCS, and if so, did you get proof of postage?

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you send that initial response to VCS, and if so, did you get proof of postage?

 

I haven't entered into any communication with anyone about this issue so far.

I've been following the advice of ericsbrother, dx100uk, and yourself about ignoring everything until VCS's legal team get involved

- which they have done today.

 

So far from them I've received...

 

1. Original NTK from VCS dated 19/01/18

 

2. Final reminder from VCS dated 19/02/18

 

3. Today's 2 letters, one from VCS the other from BW Legal (as outlined in my earlier post).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would further point out that this has been proven many times before which suggests you are merely trying to obtain money by deception.

 

I would not include that sentence. Not only does it have no direct relevance to your case it could expose you to potential legal action for defamation by BW legal. That would be, at best, a distraction from dealing with your PCN. Obtaining money by deception is a serious criminal offence.

 

Accusing - even as a "suggestion" - anybody of it is risky unless you have strong evidence. To accuse a firm of solicitors of it seems to me plain foolish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem, was just wondering.

 

The letter from BWL isn't a LBC, so continue to give them the cold shoulder for now. VCS won't win a claim in court as they've (effectively) already been shafted by their own clients JLA because the site has byelaws. So the keeper (as keeper) can never be liable, and as they won't be able to prove who was driving...

 

Expect them to cite Elliot v Loake to try and claim that the keeper is the driver, but that won't have any sway in civil court.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear what you're saying and it makes sense - I took my lead from ericbrother's suggestion in an earlier post...

 

....send a much stronger worded letter saying they know that there has been no breach of contract because there wasnt one offered to start off with, that this has been proven many times before and they are merely trying to obtain money by deception
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, I don't think that that's meant as a suggestion as to what to write in a letter.

 

Even though many of us know that it has substance in as much as they're fully aware that they don't really have a case due to the byelaws, it could prove costly if ever committed to them in a letter.

 

You'd probably be able to successfully defend a libel case, but it could prove to be quite expensive to do so. Better to just think it, unless you have very deep pockets :lol:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're more than welcome, the advice I've received here recently, and in the past, has been invaluable...

 

Ahh, I see, I took his suggestion literally :oops:

 

is the advice to still ignore them at this stage or do I send them some other wording?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore them unless the send you a letter before claim.

 

Then you go at them with both barrels, telling them in no uncertain terms that they don't have a case. We'll suggest some wording for that if & when it happens. It won't be polite :wink:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont worry, libel has to be written in the public domain,

sending a letter to this lot stating such is not a published thing.

 

Anyway, it would come under the "fair comment" defence even if it was put on a flag and flown from the rooftops.

VCS DO know that they dont have a eg to stand on and their solicitors have a duty to the justice system to ensure that they are advised properly.

If the solicitor acts reckelessly or carelessly then they can be held to account so it all boils down to this question Are VCS and their solicitors ignorant or what?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont worry, libel has to be written in the public domain,

sending a letter to this lot stating such is not a published thing.

 

That is not the definition of libel in English law. The requirement is "publication to a third party ", which can be something sent privately to just one other individual. One of the cases law students learn (can't remember its name now) involved a libellous letter sent to a firm which was seen by the post room (or some such) and that was held sufficient to be "publication to a third party ".

 

There would be other obstacles to a libel claim against OP though but that's not really the point. The point for OP to consider is not whether any law firm could ultimately obtain a judgement for libel, it's that making a statement like that just gives them ammunition to try and tie you in legal knots and make further threats. No point in poking them with a sharp stick to see they bite if it isn't going to help you fight a PCN.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ethel, that was back in the 1920's and libel laws have changed in the dafamation act of 2013, esentially to make the bar higher to make a claim for libel so not sure it that still applies.

 

Court procedure is also very different along with proof of the harm done and Gladstones will fall at that hurdle!

 

What does fail though is writing very meek letter saying I am not liable becasue they will carry on in the belief that that person will pay up when a N1 lands on their doorstep. Being very forthright and making it clear that not only will you be robust in your defence but have knowledge of their behaviour does make them think again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Defamation Act didn't change the 'publication' requirement - s15 "“publish” and “publication”, in relation to a statement, have the meaning they have for the purposes of the law of defamation generally" - but as I said before whether the law firm could actually secure judgement for libel (unlikely in this case I agree) is rather missing my point.

 

 

Which is that to suggest to a firm of solicitors they are trying to obtain money by deception is just inviting trouble for no good reason and simply gives the law firm another line of attack against you.

 

 

I agree that writing a robust letter of response is a good thing, but there are better ways of demonstrating your robustness and knowledge than accusing them of a criminal offence!

 

It sounds like you managed to track down the case I remembered from long ago, which one was it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was mentioned on a TV programme a couple of weeks back about the life of someone in Southampton the names of the parties escape me I'm afraid.

 

The misrepresentation wuld apply to the parking co more than the lawyers as we all know, solicitors only do as their clients tell them to. Phil Shiner is a good example of a solicitor only doing as he is instructed m'lud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps one way to slip it in would be as opinion or suggestion, rather than fact.

 

"It would seem almost as if you were trying to obtain money by deception" or "If someone didn't know better it may look like you were trying to obtain money by deception"

 

 

Says the same thing, but without the outright accusation.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly DF softly softly by back door.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hey again,

 

New update as promised...

 

This thread started way back in January and the advice I've received up to now has been to ignore everything from VCS Ltd or their legal people until I receive a letter before claim from BW Legal.

 

Well today I opened the attached letter and I think it might be the said LBC - it was sent about 2 weeks ago, but I've been away so only just seen it.

 

So I guess now is the time to send them the robust letter that has been mentioned a few times in the thread? (assuming it is the LBC)

 

Is there a template letter I can use, and if so, can anyone point me in the right direction? If not, any suggestions what the letter should say?

 

Many thanks

 

DCB l letter of claim.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...