BW legal/ VCS. PCN from 2011

[Empireday]

Now February, not heard anything from BW since September. I've not noticed much from BW being reported on this site recently either. Wonder if vcs have worked out that they are incompetent and not worth instructing anymore?

[ericsbrother]

not noticed much about BWL? Are you kidding?

 

They have had a number a claims they were representing thrown out because they hired someone who had no right of audience to represent their client so they couldt even present their claim.

 

 

Thye have been very busy attempting to trya an pull the wool over judges eyes regarding the POFA and when they meet someone who has read up on parking matters they lose with expenses awarded against them.

 

They will go quiet because every time someone ticks the defend in full box they ahve already lost their client about £200 and even more if the then lose the claim.

 

 

They cant afford to issue thse claims and actually attend court so tey raly on issuig court summonses to coerce peopel into paying the duff claims.

 

 

That is against the lawe but the law works very slowly so it will be a couple of years before they get told off for it

Edited February 20, 2017 by dx100uk

[Empireday]

I was just looking at recent posts EB, obviously I wasn't aware of the stuff you are referring to. They are still trying to harvest low hanging fruit by the looks of it then? In a way I hope they try to take me to court so that it's another defeat for them, but on the other hand I just want them to p off. The clock is ticking, it's up to them.

[Empireday]

Hi everyone, it is now 6 years since the alleged "offence" took place. I still haven't received any court letters from BW legal (on behalf of VCS). Am I correct to think that there is now nothing they can do, even if they wanted to? Thanks

[dx100uk]

As long as they know your current address

They can't go for backdoor CCJ

[DragonFly1967]

As long as they know your current address

They can't go for backdoor CCJ

 

I don't think that that's what Empireday is getting at DX.

 

Empireday is thinking that the 'debt' is now Statute Barred, and as the 'debt' has not been acknowledged, in fact, quite the opposite, I think they could well be correct.

 

 

I'd leave BWL to stew in their own juice though, then if they're stupid enough to issue court papers, you can wipe the floor with them

[dx100uk]

Yes its sb'd but the means very little in E&W

The debt still exists

As long as they are writing to their current address

Then they can't get a backdoor CCJ

 

Else they will!!

[Empireday]

So they can still try and take me to court and would still have a case even though it's over 6 years old? Would any court stand that?

[dx100uk]

as with any 'debt' if undefended

 

twould be a default uncontested rubberstamped judgement where nothing is checked.

 

could happen with any debt in E&W

 

which is why it is so important to always update supposed creditors on a change of address.

 

now if that did happen

then ofcourse you could set it aside because the debt was already statute barred..

 

rarely happens but there are cases in the legal forums here of consumer debt cases

[DragonFly1967]

I don't think that they can. Or at least, I don't think that they'd be that stupid.

 

They may claim that it's not SB'ed because you've been in contact with them (before it became SB'ed), but as that was only to deny the debt, I don't think that they'd have any sort of case.

[DragonFly1967]

I'd go with one single letter to BWL.

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Ref:

 

You have contacted me regarding the above reference number, which you claim is relating to a debt owed by myself.

 

I would point out that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5:

 

“An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”

 

I would point out that the Financial Conduct Authority states the following rules:

 

"A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred." 7.15.8

 

There has never been an acknowledgement of this alleged debt and no payment has ever been made in its regard. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me to acknowledge the debt in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

 

I await your written confirmation that no further contact will be made concerning the above and confirmation that this matter is now closed.

 

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours faithfully

 

[PRINT OR SIGN YOUR NAME DIGITALLY]

 

 

 

 

 

Get a free proof of postage from the Post Office. At least that way, if they ever were silly enough, you'd be able to show a paper trail.

[dx100uk]

good idea

[DragonFly1967]

good idea

 

It's like a Monkey with a typewriter. Jibberish most of the time, but sooner or later...

[honeybee13]

You're better than that, DF.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

better fits a dca that description df

[DragonFly1967]

better fits a dca that description df

 

Or a PPC

[Empireday]

So, all joking aside, there really isn't anything they can do "court wise" and even if they tried they could get into trouble. Thanks guys. Will be back on if they try to pursue it further.

[dx100uk]

i see you are not reading my posts properly then...

 

 

they would not 'get into trouble' if they raised a claim..

 

 

if your letter in aug 2016 was from the address you live at now

they've pretty stupid to try.

as the SB defence would kill it dead

[Empireday]

So, all joking aside, there really isn't anything they can do "court wise" and even if they tried they could get into trouble. Thanks guys. Will be back on if they try to pursue it further.

[Empireday]

Dx, yes I am reading your posts properly, I am also reading Dragon fly's posts. I have always denied the "debt" I haven't moved house or mentioned changing address. So one of you is saying "yes of course they can try and take you to court and one is saying if they do then they have no chance and would get into trouble for trying. See what I mean?

[DragonFly1967]

I've not said that they can't take you to court, but they would be pretty damn foolish to try it.

 

They won't get in to any "trouble" for doing it (at least, not trouble from the court) but their client might have a few choice words for them as they will be wasting their clients money, as well as their own time.

 

 

Send them that statute barred letter I posted earlier, get a free certificate of posting, and then, if they do try to take you to court, you can prove a paper trail and show the judge/court how unreasonable they are being. That will kill any claim stone dead.

[ericsbrother]

put simply anyone can sue anyone for anything.

It is only when it gets to the court hearing ( or case management) that it all falls to pieces.

 

 

If you do get a summonsa and ignore it because it is a stupid claim you will still lose,

all claims have to be defended.

It will be at this stage the plaintiff gets into trouble.

[Empireday]

Thanks EB, plain English. I obviously wrongly assumed that anything over 6 years old couldn't be acted on at all. Thanks for everyone's comments and time taken to give me advice.

[ericsbrother]

no, a claim can be made but there is an ABSOLUTE defence of it being statute barred. Once you enter that (and can show it to be true) then the claim falls. Again, dont defend and no-one will ever know it is SB

Even this is not entirely true as there are a number of divorce and compensation claims that have broken this barrier.