Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No, I think UK will get same deal as EU.  Main reasons for this are two sectors,  Defence and Financial Services.  US have huge levels of money invested in the UK, so they have a self interest in offering a trade deal as good as the EU.
    • @labrat I'll bet it isn't the subframe itself that's broken. It'll be the subframe mounting bolt(s) that have sheared off inside it. Because the bolt is seized inside the subframe, it effectively renders the subframe scrap. I suspect the garage are simply talking in terms the average customer is more likely to understand than going into the detail of it. The Golf, Jetta and Beetle, which are all mechanically identical, are notorious for it.    A smaller independent garage may have tried to get the bolts out, but you very quickly reach the point where time/effort/cost is simply not worth it and replacement of the whole subframe is the better choice.   Of course the OP could approach a salvage yard, either local or online, and ask about the cost of a good used item, which would be substantially less expensive than what I assume is the price VW are charging for a replacement.
    • Applied for and awarded by BY in Sept 2020 still not received it yet Comments appreciated
    • Hi Slick   I am not as experienced as you is there any thing in sar that i can identify. It does not state £2.5k debt in sar. It mentions new add ons.
    • So long story short.   I had a number of re-occurring loans with Unclebuck, I made a complaint in regards to my latest one back in 2019, got to an agreement to remove default markings and charges etc and just pay the principal. Didn't pay the outstanding amount due to personal reasons, being put on Furlough was one of them.   Saw that Unclebuck went into administration, made a redress application a couple of weeks ago, got awarded £807 for previous loans (not the latest one). So I contacted the administration to confirm they would pay the redress amount towards my outstanding balance, but they said they cannot do so?   How is that fair? I get they they can't pay me any cash, but surely they should be able to write off the current outstanding amount, it has to work both ways right? This was the latest response I got, so far no reply from their solicitor yet.   "Whilst I note your comments concerning your desire to set off Redress due in respect of unaffordable loans against your current loan that was not eligible for Redress, unfortunately the Administration precludes the position of set off until the Administrator makes a declaration under Rule 14.29 of the Insolvency Rules 2016. This declaration has not been made by the Administrators and will not be made as there is no distribution or intended dividend to be made to creditors in this particular Administration. Whilst I sympathise with your position, you will appreciate that the Administrators are governed by statute and cannot contract out of it.   I promise to speak to our solicitors to see if there is any room for manoeuvre on this matter and will come back to you afterwards, however I feel that it is unlikely. As you will appreciate making an exception for you may open the Administrators to claims from other customers in a similar position to yourself and indeed from other customers that do not have the benefit of another loan to set their Redress off against."   And to further add to it, I got an email today saying they transferred the loan to a collection field agency "Conexus Recovery and Field Services Ltd "  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1631 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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...