Excel/BW Legal/Peel Centre (again) ANPR PCN

[johnhn]

Came home to a letter dated 1/9/17 from Excel informing me my "account" has been passed to BW legal, and a letter dated 1/9/17 from BW legal stating same. It's an ANPR PCN, date of contravention 25/6/17, contravention - "parked without purchasing a valid pay & display ticket", location - Peel Centre Pay & Display Car Park Stockport, balance due £160 (£100 PCN charge plus Excel's "initial legal costs of £60", ha ha, very funny).

 

"As you have failed to make a payment or raise an appeal within 28 days from the date of the PCN, the Balance Due remains outstanding and we require payment in full within 16 days from the date of this letter. If you fail to make payment or provide reasons for non payment blah blah legal proceedings blah County Court blah CCJ blah blah future creditworthiness and employability blah" and so on.

 

The letter doesn't state where the vehicle was parked, for how long, why the ticket was invalid (wrong reg? expired? by how long?).

 

I haven't received any previous correspondence relating to this. AT ALL. I wasn't the driver, and wasn't at the Peel Centre that day. The driver got into a tizzy that day, couldn't remember the reg (to enter at the ticket machine) then couldn't remember where she'd parked the car, and now can't remember whether or not she even bought a ticket, had anything stuck to the windscreen, or how long she was there for.

 

Is this a simple one line denial letter job or what?

[ericsbrother]

well,

if the address held by the DVLA for your vehicle is correct then they havent notified you properly so there is no keeper liability in this matter.

 

To try and avoid being sued I would be writing back to them stating :

that you deny there is any contract between yourself and their client to give rise to this charge.

 

You were not at the location on that day and that you have not received any correspondence from their client let alone a notice that could create a keeper liability under the POFA.

 

Furthermore it is well known that there are massive problems with the signage and ticket machines at that site as these have been widely publicised.

 

It is also well known that Excel and yourselves also know this so this claim is not a genuine attempt at recovering monies owed by yourself but merely a poor attempt to coerce you into paying money not owed and that this continues as an abuse the civil procedure system as a method of unregulated debt collection activity.

 

Any such action will be resisited and a counterclaim for breach of the DPA may be issued for failing to adhere to the KADOE contract terms.

 

Send this off,

it may make them drop the matter but Excel are pretty stupid when it comes to matters like this so no guarantees as they will have spent at least a fiver on it so far hence their desire to claim an extra £60 already included in the fake £100 bill

[johnhn]

many thanks (again) ericsbrother - writing the letter now.

[johnhn]

should I bother asking them for evidence of the alleged contravention and the original NTK?

[ericsbrother]

no, you are terlling them to f off in polite words so dont ask for anything or they will think you are a waverer who will pay up if they try hard enough.

Should they continue with legal action then you ask for all sorts of things they cant supply

[johnhn]

Came home from work yesterday to a BW Legal "FINAL NOTICE".

 

"We advise that we are yet to receive a payment and/or a response to the First Letter" [response sent to Excel 13/9/17]

 

Blah blah, full payment required within 17 days, £100 parking charge plus £60 "our client's initial legal fees...detailed in the car park [where I wasn't, on that day] terms and conditions."

 

CCJ threat, ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 "parking charges serve a legitimate commercial interest and are neither extravagant nor unconscionable. This case eliminates the main defence" blah blah.

[ericsbrother]

all cobblers and they know it.

 

They also know that most people fall for this guff so that is why they continue to peddle it

 

I also note that they have deliberately changed the wording of the supreme court judges to end up saying somehting very different regarding what "extravagant and unconscionable.

 

The original quote said that under those particular circumstances a charge of £80 was neither extravagant nor unconscionable,

not that any amount they decide to claim is that.

 

Still when did a lawyer ever tell the truth unless they were paid to

[johnhn]

Let's see if I'm thinking along the right lines...

 

According to DVLA, Excel requested keeper details on 13/07/2017.

 

Where no NTD has been issued (i.e. because ANPR has been used instead, as in this case), the keeper details must be requested not later than 14 days after the alleged contravention.

 

Excel's request was 18 days after the alleged contravention and thus does not comply with PoFA, therefore no keeper liability exists.

 

There is also no probable cause for a keeper details request out of time, so this is also a DPA breach.

[ericsbrother]

so, as long as you havent admitted being the driver they are caught with their trousers down. Somehting to consider after they have given up chasing you should yu cancy a few quid in your bank account at their expense. Always deal with the 2 things as separate issues though.

[johnhn]

I replied to BW Legal on 13/11/17 thus:

 

"Further to your letter dated 6th November 2017 in which you advise that you are “yet to receive a payment and/or a response to the First Letter”, please find enclosed my letter dated 13th September 2017 to Excel Parking, which was copied to yourselves."

 

The aforementioned letter to Excel (cc'ed to BW Legal) said this:

 

"It is denied that any monies are due to your client as there is no keeper liability in this matter and no contract was offered at the time.

 

I was not at the location on the day in question and have not received any previous correspondence let alone a notice that could create a keeper liability under the PoFA. Furthermore, it is well known that there are massive problems with the signage and ticket machines at the site as these have been widely publicised. It is also well known that Excel and BW Legal are aware of this so this claim is not a genuine attempt at recovering monies allegedly owed to you but merely a poor attempt to coerce me into paying money not owed and that this continues as an abuse of the Civil Procedure system as a method of unregulated debt collection activity. Any such action will be resisted and a counterclaim for breach of the DPA may be issued for failing to adhere to the KADOE contract terms.

 

Please ensure all future correspondence is directed to the above address."

 

Today I have received the following reply from BW Legal:

 

"We write in reference to the above matter and your correspondence dated 13 November 2017.

 

We enclose a copy of our letter to you dated 29 September 2017.

 

We request you contact our office within 14 days of the date of this letter to discuss this matter further."

 

Here are the contents of their letter dated 29 September 2017, which I never received.

 

"We write in reference to the above matter and your recent correspondence dated 13 September 2017 [aha! so they DID receive a response from me...].

 

The Parking Charge Notice "(PCN") contravention took place on 25 June 2017 at the Peel Centre Pay and Display Car Park where the vehicle bearing registration number XXXX XXX parked without payment of the car parking tariff for the vehicle on site. The prohibition was clearly detailed on the signs [which I didn't see, because I wasn't there] contained within the [location] and by parking [except I didn't park] without payment of the tariff, you have contravened the prohibition and are therefore liable for the Balance.

 

Our Client have [sic] provided further details regarding the Car Park in question and how they operate within the Pay & Display Car Park to monitor the purchase of Pay & Display tickets and the entrance and exiting of vehicles. The Car Park in question is a pay on entry Pay & Display Car Park. The Terms and Conditions of the Car Park require a valid Pay & Display (P&D) Ticket to be purchased after entering the Car Park, detailing the full vehicle registration mark (VRM).

 

Management of this site is conducted via ANPR cameras that take photographs of vehicles entering and exiting the Car Park and work in conjunction with the data collected by the Pay and Display machines using the VRM.

 

Our Client confirms that they have no record of any such purchase of a Pay & Display ticket, or close match, for the vehicle captured by their ANPR cameras. Please see enclosed a copy of photographic evidence [nothing enclosed, any such "evidence" would clearly prove that I was not the driver] at the location of the contravention. We have also enclosed a copy of the site plan [no they haven't] showing signage at the time of your PCN.

 

We note from your correspondence [which they subsequently claimed never to have received] that you state you were not the driver at the time of the PCN. As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, our client, in the absence of the driver's details, reasonable presumes you were the driver [no reasonable presumption can be made, it us up to them to provide evidence, hence collection of photographs, which prove I was not the driver] and we refer you to the case of Elliott v Loake [1982]. We would be grateful if you could provide the driver's name and address [yes I bet you would] within 14 days from the date of this letter.

 

We note your comments regarding the disclosure of your details as the registered keeper of the vehicle by the DVLA. Please find below an extract of the DVLA Release of Information document:

 

'The DVLA's vehicle database records details of the registered keeper of a vehicle, although it is acknowledge [sic] that the registered keeper may not be the driver of the vehicle at any particular point in time. Vehicle keeper details may be disclosed to law enforcement authorities or private litigants as a first point of contact to establish where liability for an incident or event may lie. Refusal to disclose these details would mean that motorists could drive or park a vehicle without fear of being held responsible for their actions. [i wasn't the driver, so they weren't my actions]. Disclosure in these circumstances does not breach the Data Protection Act [Excel's request was 18 days after the alleged contravention and thus does not comply with PoFA, therefore no keeper liability exists.There is also no probable cause for a keeper details request out of time, so this is also a DPA breach] and the Information Commissioner's Office is fully aware that data held on the DVLA's records is released in this way.'

 

As the Balance om this account remains outstanding we request that you provide the driver's details within 14 days of this letter [or else what?] or contact us within 14 days to arrange payment to clear the Balance.

 

In the event that you are unable to pay the Balance in full, please contact our helpful team on the details above to discuss a suitable payment arrangement. Please note that if you fail to contact us within the above-mentioned time frame we are instructed to initiate County Court proceedings."

[johnhn]

Their use of Elliott v Loake is also complete cobblers.

[DragonFly1967]

They just don't learn do they

[ericsbrother]

I also like it where they say disclosure of the keeper details isnt a breach of the DPA.

 

No one has ever said the DVLA are in breach,

it is the lying gits at Excel who are in breach of their agreement with the DVLA and thus in breach of the DPA by PROCESSING your data.

 

No wonder parliament is full of lawyers and not scientists

[johnhn]

So I'm guessing I hold my course, repeat what I've already said to them and reiterate their errors and inconsistencies...

[DragonFly1967]

I wouldn't bother repeating yourself. You're just wasting a stamp.

 

Wait and see what they do

[lookinforinfo]

I wouldn't bother replying. They will keep on writing anyway spouting their usual rubbish. The only time to respond is if you receive a Letter Before Action which would be stupid of them. Just file away their correspondence in case they decide to keep on being stupid.

[johnhn]

I'll happily see them in court when it will become patently clear that the shaven headed gentleman before them is not the blonde female pictured in their "evidence"...

[johnhn]

I wouldn't bother replying. They will keep on writing anyway spouting their usual rubbish. The only time to respond is if you receive a Letter Before Action which would be stupid of them. Just file away their correspondence in case they decide to keep on being stupid.

 

A "weekend spoiler" arrived yesterday from BW Legal - "Letter of Claim". They're asking "if" (!) I dispute the debt (clearly - I already have!) and my reasons for non-payment (because I don't owe it!).

 

They've given me until 27th Feb to cough up £160 or they "are instructed" to issue a County Court Claim.

[honeybee13]

It sounds like a standard threatogram to me, but please wait for the experts. £160 is a common amount for them to arrive at with unwarranted charges.

 

Could you post up a redacted copy of the letter please?

 

HB

[dx100uk]

you reply and refer them to your letter of the 13/11/17

[ericsbrother]

so, as short letter based on the advice given earlier so something like:

 

Dear Will and John,

tell your client Simon that I am not as stupid as he is, he has failed to create a keeper liability and Elliot v Loake has always been copiously spat out in court when you have tried it so cant understand why you are still peddling that to your clients.

 

Likewise you know that your "initial legal costs" demands are utter cobblers as well, the POFA specifically forbids such ursury.

 

I hope that this is now considered to be your last hurrah at bullying me into paying monies that are not due but should he take up your kind offer of a bit of Champerty and Maintenance despite all of the previous failures on your part I will defend such a claim most vigourously and probably counterclaim for damages as a result of their breach of the DPA as per VCS v Philip, another of Simon's and yours great days out.

 

Hopefully that will do and if they do persuade Excel to throw good money after bad this letter wil be part of yoru evidence that they are acting unreasonably and a full costs recovery can be sought.

[DragonFly1967]

I wouldn't address that letter to Will & John though.

 

This is BWL not Gladrags, so it would be "Dear Sean and Rachael"

[ericsbrother]

well spotted DF

[brassnecked]

Same wording though.