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

[eric30]

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.

[honeybee13]

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

[silverfox1961]

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.

[Oddfellow]

Yep, 1st October 2012 as enforced by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2012.

 

 

[ericsbrother]

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

[eric30]

Thank you for the advise. I will follow ericsbrother's advise update this thread of any further responses.

 

Thank you

[eric30]

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

[dx100uk]

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

[silverfox1961]

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

[ericsbrother]

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.

[eric30]

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

[dx100uk]

Wouldn't matter if it was a LBA

Nothing you could prevent

 

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

[ericsbrother]

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