Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

VCS BW Legal - PCN Sheffield in free car park in 2012 for parking out of bay


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2843 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I have done some research on this forum (and others) and haven't found anyone in a similar situation.

 

I have received a letter from BW Legal demanding payment of £174.00 for their client, Vehicle Control Services Limited, for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This 'PCN' was given as the car was 'Parked beyond the bay markings'. The letter has the standard 'fear' language such as 'if not paid we will commence legal proceedings' and 'If we gain a CCJ this will have a detrimental effect on your future creditworthiness and employability'. This letter is also signed 'BW Legal' rather than with an actual name, which I find odd.

 

This was a free car park in Sheffield for Valley Centretainment customers (Which we were). We went to the cinema and restaurant there but parked on the end of a row of cars, which wasn't marked as a parking bay. There was no signage that clearly stated that cars must be parked in the bays and as it was a free car park for customers I refused to accept the charge.

 

Back when the original letters were sent, I followed online recommendations to simply ignore the demands, and after several 'final notices' I heard nothing from them until now.

 

The PCN was issued early 2012 (I've read on other threads that it is pre PoFA, but I don't fully know what that means). Doing some research now it seems that it might not be the best idea to continue ignoring these letters, however I don't want to respond to them after such a long time as it might trigger them to harass me or to 'continue with legal proceedings'. I would ask if anyone could suggest if I should respond, what response to give and the best way to respond (I presume all written/mailed rather than email).

 

They have demanded I pay within 16 days of the date of the letter, which was a few days before I even received the letter, or they will carry out with proceedings with the County Court Claim.

 

Thank you for reading my post and I appreciate any help/suggestions given.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

I'm sure the forum guys will tell you the best way to deal with this, we have a rash of cases from years ago being chased by BW Legal at the moment. They should be along over the course of the day.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG.

The Protection of Freedoms Act came into force late 2012 (October I believe) so as it appears your ticket was before this date, ONLY the driver could be chased and there was no keeper libility until the act came into force.

BWL are relying on ignorance to chase these 'debts' You are under no obligation to name the driver and after all this time, it would be very difficult to remember who was actually driving (if you get my thinking).

 

BWL know this is pre PoFA and know they cannot take action against the keeper unless they know that the keeper and the driver is one and the same.

 

Others will say ignore again but we are seeing more of these chasing letters of late so I would be writing ONE letter.

 

I would be saying something like.

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX and its contents are noted.

 

Your alleged claim is prior to PoFA 2012 and as such only the driver is liable. I also understand that I am not obliged to name that driver.

Even if I chose to name the driver, the amount of time that has elapsed means that I could not recall who was driving at the time therefore, should you intend to instigate legal action, this will be fully defended.

Any future letters from you will be read but not acknowledged.

 

As I said, others will say ignore and that is fine for some (possibly you too) but I feel a response could stop them bothering you in the future.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

essentially you write to BW legal and say that "there is no keeper liability for this alleged event and to cease their petty attampts to claim money where none is due".

That one line will suffice, dont add anything else or you may invite further begging letters/threats etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello,

 

BW Legal have responded to my letter.

 

They presume I was the drive as details of the driver have not been given. They refer to Elliott v Loake 1982. (I believe they can't presume I was the driver...)

 

They do not intend to rely on POFA 2012 (Which I believe is irrelevant as this 'PCN' was issued before POFA)

 

They want the details of the driver or for me to pay within 7 days. (Which I will not)

 

 

Shall I ignore this? Shall I respond?

Shall I request to be removed from their database as I am not liable for this charge, under the Data Protection Act?

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go read a few like BW threads here

You'll see that everyone that sent a denial letter has had these types of reply

 

Safe to ignore them now

But don't ignore a claimforn should they be that brave

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

When it comes to court, they cannot presume anything.

 

The case mentioned (I believe) has no relevence to your case.

 

You are unable to name the driver even if you wanted to as so much time has elapsed that you cannot truthfully remember who was driving at the time nor should you be punished for not being able to remember.

 

It is likely they will send another letter stating that the parking company will start legal action if you don't pay.

 

Not sure if you have seen this thread as it is similar to yours and a little further on than you are.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?466939-BW-legal-VCS.-PCN-from-2011

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

the quoting of Elliott and Loake is a red herring and you shouldnt fall for it.

 

 

If it was applicable to parking contracts they wouldnt have ever needed to introduce the POFA to create a limited keeper liability and no parking co would ever lose an appeal at any level.

 

Until recently they used to quote Lordsvale v Bank of Zambia for showing their clients were not just making things up when it comes to a schedule of loss.

 

 

Again, this didnt apply to unilateral contracts but that didnt stop them trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

 

 

That is why people employ them,

they can use joined up writing and dream up excuses that an ordinary person wouldnt dare to trot out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your replies.

 

I realised that I forgot to say that they put after requesting the driver details that if I fail to provide the details they will issue court proceedings. Does this mean that this is or is not a letter before claim???

 

I think I'm safe to ignore this letter. I will update when another letter is sent.

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't matter if it was a LBA

Nothing you could prevent

 

If/if not you get a claimforn is anyone's guess

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

it is not a lba but that doesnt really matter a jot. They can threatent o do anything they want but it is down to their client how much money they want to lose over this. They re hopibng you willsuddenly cave in and pay, they dont want to waste anothe £600 on a court case they cant win but the lawyers might persuade them to continue and anything you say wont alter that

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...