Tweet
Background: in 2016, a car registered to me was parked on private land (a business that was closed that day), resulting in a PCN from Vehicle Control Services (VCS) attached to the car. This was ignored, as was the NTK asking for driver details, and letter stating it was being passed to BW Legal. Initial response to BW Legal raised a number of issues; they then sent out a 'final notice' which claimed no response had been received. Another letter sent raising more points, which they responded to in December 2016; another letter sent rebutting some of their points and requesting further documentation. After that, it all went quiet...
...until May 2019, when a letter was received from DCBL, stating they were pursuing the 'debt'. A call was made to BW Legal, who stated that as far as they were concerned, they were still dealing with it, the complaints were still being investigated and any further action was on hold. Letter sent to DCBL explaining this, and questioning the legality/ethics of having two separate companies pursuing the same debt. After that, it all went quiet...
...Until this week, when I received a CCBC Claim Form from VCS, for the original amount claimed plus court fee. Issue date was 23 Dec 2019, so date of service is 28 Dec. I have completed AOS on MCOL. Claim form states 'at all times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver'.
I think the main defence is that any implied contract was entered into by the driver, and VCS has no evidence of who that was. At the time, three people were insured to drive the car, and all three drove it that day. Other points to be made are that letters from BW Legal have been misleading and/or bullying (e.g. claiming that ParkingEye v Beavis 'eliminates the main defence that you will have should the matter go to court', without knowing what my defence is; stating they will be relying on Elliott v Loake to establish keeper liability, when that case had nothing to do with keeper liability); they have not provided any evidence of a contract with the landowner despite being specifically asked to do so; that using two different debt collection companies on the same matter can also be viewed as intimidatory tactics; that pursuing the claim while complaints are still being investigated is in breach of both FCA and SRA codes of conduct; and that no Letter Before Claim was sent.
Before I craft a formal response in defence, can anyone offer thoughts/comments/suggestions on this? Are there grounds for claiming that failing to respond for more than two years, then going straight to CCBC claim without Letter Before Claim, is abuse of process? Anything else I should be throwing in there?
Thanks in advance...
*
...until May 2019, when a letter was received from DCBL, stating they were pursuing the 'debt'. A call was made to BW Legal, who stated that as far as they were concerned, they were still dealing with it, the complaints were still being investigated and any further action was on hold. Letter sent to DCBL explaining this, and questioning the legality/ethics of having two separate companies pursuing the same debt. After that, it all went quiet...
...Until this week, when I received a CCBC Claim Form from VCS, for the original amount claimed plus court fee. Issue date was 23 Dec 2019, so date of service is 28 Dec. I have completed AOS on MCOL. Claim form states 'at all times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver'.
I think the main defence is that any implied contract was entered into by the driver, and VCS has no evidence of who that was. At the time, three people were insured to drive the car, and all three drove it that day. Other points to be made are that letters from BW Legal have been misleading and/or bullying (e.g. claiming that ParkingEye v Beavis 'eliminates the main defence that you will have should the matter go to court', without knowing what my defence is; stating they will be relying on Elliott v Loake to establish keeper liability, when that case had nothing to do with keeper liability); they have not provided any evidence of a contract with the landowner despite being specifically asked to do so; that using two different debt collection companies on the same matter can also be viewed as intimidatory tactics; that pursuing the claim while complaints are still being investigated is in breach of both FCA and SRA codes of conduct; and that no Letter Before Claim was sent.
Before I craft a formal response in defence, can anyone offer thoughts/comments/suggestions on this? Are there grounds for claiming that failing to respond for more than two years, then going straight to CCBC claim without Letter Before Claim, is abuse of process? Anything else I should be throwing in there?
Thanks in advance...
*
Comment