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 QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Excel/bw chasing my wifes carer
Options
Comments
-
I haven't seen my Carer for a few days and the letters go to her so I'm not sure. I know as of Thurs last she had not had any more letters from bw.
I know the whole thing is causing her great distress as she definately cannot afford this level of charge being quoted. Like you I have tried to confound bw with guidance from the good people on this forum but it's still a worry.
I think you should stop worrying and placate your carer.
From everything I read on the forums, BWLegal are right now "up a stream without a paddle"
This can work two ways ...
1: The SRA sanction them or even more, which will give a huge warning to the other rogue solicitors that they could be next.
I think that Gladstones and Wright Hassall will be next.
Right now, the SRA has no option if they are to remain credible
2: The SRA brush this under the carpet (very doubtful) which will then lead to the question about them as an authority and indeed all solicitors
BWLegal has shamed itself to it's own regulator especially abusing the "principals" they accepted when joining the SRA
The SRA really has no option now0 -
Received a letter from bw saying they are approaching their client Excel to get authority for going further.
This is the second one of those so I assume they just send out some sort of automated replies.0 -
Received a letter from bw saying they are approaching their client Excel to get authority for going further.
This is the second one of those so I assume they just send out some sort of automated replies.
What a motly bunch of solicitors BWLegal are ??
No good for the reputation of the SRA.
So, with all their previous correspondence, all their bluster, lies, and misrepresentation plus harassment, it seems they were only acting as debt collectors. They gave the impression that this was the end of the line and now ....... they need authority from Excel ???
Do please raise a new complaint to the SRA about this BWLegal fanfair of fabrications
Again tell BWLegal that this is on hold pending further investigations with the SRA.0 -
We received a letter from bw that I didn't put it on the forum stating that even though the parking "sin" was pre POFA the signs state that the keeper is responsible for any PCN.
I know that Excel left this car park soon after my carers so called contravention. I therefore asked them for proof of the signage by way of a photo' sigfned by an indepedent witness on or around the date in question.
Their reply is below. They still keep quoting Elliot v Loake even though I thought that this so called precedent had been discounted. Theyn are now throwing in VCS who have never been mentioned before.
Dear Madam
Our Client: Excel Parking Services Ltd
Account Number: L II!')
Balance: £154,00 ("the Balance")
We write in reference to the above matter and in response to your recent correspondence.
It is VCS's position that it is the lawful occupier of the site and enforces and manages the site terms in
a reasonable manor.
We note your comments that we have no evidence of who was driving on the day of the contravention
and therefore the case ofElliot v Loake [1982] is irrelevant. As you have failed to provide full
particulars of the alleged driver upon receipt of the PCN, or at all, you have failed to comply with the
terms of the PCN. Your failure to do so can only be regarded as deliberate.
Furthermore, in the absence of the full details of the driver being provided, our client is entitled to
proceed on the reasonable presumption that the registered keeper was the driver on the Contravention
Date. This is supported by the case of Elliott v Loake [1983].
We have requested photographs of the signage at the site from our client. We have placed your
account on hold whilst the query is ongoing. This will be provided to you upon receipt.
Please note, as established members of the Independent Parking Committee, our client adheres to their
Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ("Code of
Practice"). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car
Park. The signs within the Car Park comply with the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed
reasonable.
We will revert to you in due course.
Yours faithfully
BWLegal0 -
that letter is so wrong
our client is entitled to
proceed on the reasonable presumption that the registered keeper was the driver on the Contravention
Date. WRONG , PRE POPLA
This is supported by the case of Elliott v Loake [1983]. WRONG , that was a criminal case
Please note, as established members of the Independent Parking Committee, our client adheres to their
Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ("Code of
Practice"). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car park WRONG , They were BPA members at the time
Our Client: Excel Parking Services Ltd , It is VCS's position that it is the lawful occupier of the site TWO separate companies .
EXCEL
Company number: 02878122
VCS
Company number: 02498820
their letter is worth reporting to the SRA , it is so misleading and untrueSave a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
Everything said by pappa is correct
BWLegal are digging a huge hole for themselves. Their lack of knowledge is beyond belief ..... should they really be allowed to practice using the SRA status ???
YES, a further complaint to the SRA is required enclosing a copy of the letter and pointing out to the SRA THE ERRORS and fabrications quoted by BWLegal0 -
Why not reply thusly
WRT Elliot v Loake, I shall be happy to tell the Court why this criminal case is irrelevant. However, if I have to do so, when I prevail, I shall be seeking punitive damages and full costs from your client for their unreasonable behaviour under CPR27.14(2)(g).You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
They are going to keep insisting that Elliot v Loake is valid, because if they admit now that it's nonsense it'll make them look terrible. Continue to complain to the SRA about it, but don't worry too much.
The Deeps reply above is a fair one; don't bother discussing the details of why Elliot v Loake doesn't apply (they already know), but just highlight that you're happy to bring it up in court and are confident you'll be successful.
I'd send a detailed complaint to the SRA highlighting every factual error in the letter, there's loads:As you have failed to provide full
particulars of the alleged driver upon receipt of the PCN(1), or at all, you have failed to comply with the
terms of the PCN (2). Your failure to do so can only be regarded as deliberate (3).
1. There's no evidence that you have had receipt of the PCN, since you're not the driver.
2a. You can't comply with the terms of the PCN, since again, no indication you received it as you're not the driver.
2b. I'm pretty sure the terms on an invoice can't overrule your protections under the law, so PCN (which is a contract between the PPC and the driver) cannot transfer liability to anyone who isn't the driver.
3. They can't "only [regard]" this as deliberate - this incident was pre-POFA? - So it's not reasonable for anyone to remember about this incident, especially if it was ignored at the time, due to looking like a hoax.0 -
a reasonable manor.
In your complaint to the SRA tell them that you wouldn't expect a qualified solicitor to have such an appalling grasp of the English language so as not to be able to distinguish 'manor' from 'manner'. The whole meaning of the sentence is changed to the point that it makes little sense in the context of the casePlease note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
We have requested photographs of the signage at the site from our client. We have placed your account on hold whilst the query is ongoing. This will be provided to you upon receipt.
The signs within the Car Park comply with the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.
We will revert to you in due course.
Yours faithfully
BWLegal
Have they been supplied with crystal balls at BW now ? In one breath they tell you that they have requested photos of the signage, then they say that the signs comply with the code of practice and are therefore deemed reasonable. Which one is it ?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards