We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
BW Legal - Excel - new letter from 2012!
Comments
-
Have they mentioned Elliott v Loake?
There is nothing intimidating about the SCC, no wigs no gowns, no screaming drama queens. Do not try to impersonate Perry Mason, but dig up all the dirt you can on the PPC. Do not negotiate, rather, see how you can cost them money.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Yes, reply to the letter in the same way everyone else does who gets that letter (tons of examples on pepipoo). Only read recent ones from the last month or two, there are shedloads, not superseded by any court decision. Only read recent stuff.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hello all.
So, as expected, BW Legal have denied that Excel need to adhere to PoFA, and that they are ok to load on legal charges, as it says so in the T&C's on site.
The above was the basis of my argument - I cannot prove I wasn't the driver, as they can't prove I was. It was 4 years ago and frankly I don't have a clue.
Which is fine, and everything I've read tells me that they don't have a chance - but it looks like they might do, as everything I'm read seems to get superseded by something else which has happened, and I feel frankly cornered and under educated by it all now.
I know you can't tell me what I need to do now, but considering I'm pretty stressed with it now, I can't really keep dedicating time to it, and they have offered to take off a % (it's about £100 now as opposed to £150 with "legal charges" - I'm wondering whether it's now going to be cheaper for me to pay up at this point.
I really don't want to give in - this feels totally unjust, but as they are much more qualified at this kind of cowboyery than me and seem to be able to block every suggestion I pick up on, I'm thinking it might just be cheaper and much less stressful to get it over with. This isn't in my nature, but it's frankly keeping me awake now.0 -
Hello all.
So, as expected, BW Legal have denied that Excel need to adhere to PoFA, and that they are ok to load on legal charges, as it says so in the T&C's on site.
The above was the basis of my argument - I cannot prove I wasn't the driver, as they can't prove I was. It was 4 years ago and frankly I don't have a clue.
Which is fine, and everything I've read tells me that they don't have a chance - but it looks like they might do, as everything I'm read seems to get superseded by something else which has happened, and I feel frankly cornered and under educated by it all now.
I know you can't tell me what I need to do now, but considering I'm pretty stressed with it now, I can't really keep dedicating time to it, and they have offered to take off a % (it's about £100 now as opposed to £150 with "legal charges" - I'm wondering whether it's now going to be cheaper for me to pay up at this point.
I really don't want to give in - this feels totally unjust, but as they are much more qualified at this kind of cowboyery than me and seem to be able to block every suggestion I pick up on, I'm thinking it might just be cheaper and much less stressful to get it over with. This isn't in my nature, but it's frankly keeping me awake now.
BW Legal have denied that Excel need to adhere to PoFA,
correct ! POFa did not exist when the incident happened !
however they do have adhere to UK law as it stood back in August 2012 , that was , that they could only bring charges if they knew the driver of the vehicle , the owner of the vehicle could not be chased unless he admitted to driving the vehicle.
if they quote Elliot v locke , ask them for the forensic evidence !Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
No-one said they HAD to comply with the POFA.
We (and you) said they HAVE to comply with the POFA for keeper liability.
Not the same thing and it is up to the claimant (them) to establish their case and liable party. As you have no idea and may will not have been driving then you cannot be held liable.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Just be aware that no matter what you say to them, and how informed you are about what you say to them, they will always come back to you with one more "final" threat. That is how they work and how they run their business for a profit. But this doesn't mean they are legally right, or that they actually intend to pursue this pre POFA matter in court.New members, please refer to "sticky" threads that are alwasys "stuck" at the top of this forum0
-
arabesque_101 wrote: »Just be aware that no matter what you say to them, and how informed you are about what you say to them, they will always come back to you with one more "final" threat. That is how they work and how they run their business for a profit. But this doesn't mean they are legally right, or that they actually intend to pursue this pre POFA matter in court.
BWLegal are not a god, they are showing their ignorance and by continuing in the way they are, just means more complaints to the SRA.
We still wait to see what happens to them in court.
Those already heard resulting in the perfect comment by the Prankster .....
BW Legal are therefore early contenders for The Prankster's "Most Incompetent Solicitors of The Year" annual award
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=bw+legal0 -
Scaremongering scammers, first class professional ham shankers. :money:BWLegal are not a god, they are showing their ignorance and by continuing in the way they are, just means more complaints to the SRA.
We still wait to see what happens to them in court.
Those already heard resulting in the perfect comment by the Prankster .....
BW Legal are therefore early contenders for The Prankster's "Most Incompetent Solicitors of The Year" annual award
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=bw+legalPPCs say its carpark management, BPA say its raising standards..... we all know its just about raking in the revenue. :eek:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards