"Final Notice' from BW Legal re VCS parking charge

[Inland Seabird]

I've received a letter headed 'Final Notice' from BW Legal, relating to a parking charge incurred in August 2016. I originally disputed the charge and can provide extra detail and upload copies of any or all correspondence and photos if it helps. Unfortunately, in that correspondence I did acknowledge that I was the driver - I was naive and didn't realise it was important not to at the time. VCS rejected my argument and continued to write about my 'outstanding debt'. However, my first contact from BW Legal has been this 'final notice', which contains reference to another letter of 6 Feb that they have not received response to - this will be because I didn't receive any such letter. Anyway, basically, they are saying I have until 31 March before they commence County Court proceedings. I've done some research here and on the Pepipoo forums and have drafted the following response. I am just hoping for some guidance about whether it is well-worded, accurate and will help at least buy me some more time while I do more research and learn enough to defend myself properly.

My draft response:

Dear BW Legal,


With reference to your letter dated 14th March 2017, ref VCS/********


I have just returned from a trip to find this letter. It refers to your letter dated 6 February 2017 “The First Letter” and stated that you are yet to receive a payment and/or response. This is because I have received no such letter. My last communication in connection with this ‘PCN’ was from VCS, ref VC0*****, dated 14 Nov 2016. Therefore I have not been afforded the opportunity to provide a detailed response to you (further to the one I provided to VCS on 2 September 2016 in response to the PCN itself).


I deny any debt to Vehicle Control Services Ltd.


The debt is denied for reasons that include, but not exclusively, the following:

• Your client is in breach of its Code of Practice Section 14 regarding predatory tactics, specifically as it relates to section 7 of its operational requirements re disabled motorists
  
• The signage is in breach of Schedule 1 of its Code of Practice 4, also specifically ref section 7 of its operational requirements re disabled motorists

I also note your misrepresentation of the consequences of an adverse judgement, and assertion that you £60 charge for legal expenses would be recoverable in the Small Claims Court. You are therefore in breach of Chapter 11 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct, specifically Indicative Behaviours IB 11.7 and 11.8


This charge is disputed and you must now refer this matter back to your client and cease and desist all contact with me. If you persist, I will not hesitate to report BW Legal to the SRA.


Yours Faithfully


I would really, REALLY appreciate any guidance. Or, if the advice is to pay up now, so be it.

Thank you.

[mystery1]

Re: "Final Notice' from BW Legal re VCS parking charge

Pre action correspondence is really about information gathering. You are basically saying i owe you nothing but in reality will make zero difference.

You also seem to think they are BPA members and have looked at that code of practice. They are actually IPC members. https://theipc.info/aos-members/v https://theipc.info/resources/brandi...f-Practice.pdf

At this stage, with all the added crap on top, it's better to go to court and lose because you'll probably pay less than is being claimed.

M1

[Inland Seabird]

Re: "Final Notice' from BW Legal re VCS parking charge

Thanks for replying to me. Sorry if I'm not following you - are you telling me I'm wide of the mark here? That I should be responding in a fundamentally different way? If so, how? I would much prefer not to go to court, or to go to court and win. At the moment they are seeking £160: £100 penalty and £60 'legal expenses'.

I am referring to the IPC code of conduct that I found here: https://theipc.info/resources/brandi...f-Practice.pdf

[mystery1]

Re: "Final Notice' from BW Legal re VCS parking charge

I am referring to the IPC code of conduct that I found here: https://theipc.info/resources/brandi...f-Practice.pdf

I mixed up the page number and the paragraph number. You were correct.

are you telling me I'm wide of the mark here? That I should be responding in a fundamentally different way? If so, how?

I am.

Something like

Dear BW Legal,

I write in response to your final notice dated xx, the contents of which are noted.

As the pre action protocols expect us to exchange sufficient information to understand each others position please forward to myself the original parking charge notice and a picture of the signs at the location as well as the operators contract which allows them to operate at the site (or indeed confirmation they own the land in question).

As well as the information already requested please answer the following questions :-

What type of car park is it ?

What contravention gives a cause of action ?

In what capacity are you pursuing me ?

Have you followed the rules laid down in the Protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 ?

Not only will this information help comply with the pre action protocols it will also help achieve the over riding objective.


I have just returned from a trip to find this letter. It refers to your letter dated 6 February 2017 “The First Letter” and stated that you are yet to receive a payment and/or response. This is because I have received no such letter. My last communication in connection with this ‘PCN’ was from VCS, ref VC0*****, dated 14 Nov 2016. Therefore I have not been afforded the opportunity to provide a detailed response to you (further to the one I provided to VCS on 2 September 2016 in response to the PCN itself).

I deny any debt to Vehicle Control Services Ltd.


The debt is denied for reasons that include, but not exclusively, the following:



Your client is in breach of its Code of Practice Section 14 regarding predatory tactics, specifically as it relates to section 7 of its operational requirements re disabled motorists
The signage is in breach of Schedule 1 of its Code of Practice 4, also specifically ref section 7 of its operational requirements re disabled motorists

I also note your misrepresentation of the consequences of an adverse judgement, and assertion that you £60 charge for legal expenses would be recoverable in the Small Claims Court. You are therefore in breach of Chapter 11 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct, specifically Indicative Behaviours IB 11.7 and 11.8


This charge is disputed and you must now refer this matter back to your client and cease and desist all contact with me. If you persist, I will not hesitate to report BW Legal to the SRA.

Yours etc


I'm afraid the only choice YOU have to avoid court is to pay (making an effort to negotiate a lower amount 1st). If they decide not to go to court, bonus. It does appear that they will though.


M1