I got a reply from bw legal!

I have now had a reply to my letter about overlapping letters and dates by which they wanted paying.

To back track, the last but one letter changed tone to, if payment was not forthcoming withing 7 days "we are instructed to initiate County Court proceedings...". The last letter dated 6 days later was 'letter of claim' including "If our client successfully obtains a County Court Judgement ("CCJ") against you (which is likely)".....blah blah " In allowing you the opportunity to make representations and/or pay the Balance before proceedings being issued , our Client has complied with the guidelines under the Independent Parking Committee Code of Practice ("the Code") and its obligations under Civil Procedure Rules ("CPR"). All previous correspondence in this matter will be brought to the attention of then Court should this point be raised". "To avoid proceedings being commenced ..... we request you pay the balance by 29th September 2016".

Yesterday's letter is an individual reply going through dates and contents of letters but changes its tone again. It explains the legal standing of the fact one letter was marked "Without Prejudice" (the offer of reduced costs), repeats that I am presumed driver as I haven't told them who was driving. Apparently, "until any evidence has been provided by yourself to suggest alternatively, you will still be pursued for the Balance". Regarding any SRA complaint says that "we continue to act legitimately on our client's instructions".

As to who was driving, we then have "you have a duty to provide such evidence due to the pre action obligations of potential litigants under Civil Procedure Rules 1998". Can someone clarify what they mean by this - as I thought they had to prove who was driving? Also, does this mean that they consider their Letter Of Claim to be a letter before action?

They finish with a reminder of my right to take independent legal advice as to the contents of their letter (this last letter, not all previous letters)- which I am assuming is due to SRA complaints about them writing threatening legal stuff to non legally knowledgeable people.

So, I am confused as to where I am with this now. Apparently i have another 7 days to prevent it going to Court - by paying or providing name and address of driver.

Have any others (Mowkid?) got any further with this? What do i reply this time? I am getting very fed up with all this now and dread getting home every day to see the post......

Thanks for helping!

Thanks for your quick reply. I have a long SRA complaint in and added an update last week with copies of all letters. I shall send them this too.

I emailed Theresa May and the dept you mentioned who are responsible for the pending report about parking (communities and something?!) I also put copies of all letters in the post to Ms. May. Also sent to CSA.

I assumed they were making it all up again, but wanted to check that they didn't think they had sent me something formal regarding court proceedings and I had failed to respond correctly.

So, do I reply to them pointing out that I don't have to tell them anything??

It definitely seems in this letter that by trying to explain legal terms and telling me I can get legal advice, they think they escape from being accused by SRA of trying to bamboozle the recipient......then throw in some spurious stuff and show what they really are.

Oh, I did mention the current press interest in PCN/CCJ leading to comments by the PM. They say that they do not consider lawyers representing the legitimate interests of their clients as newsworthy, but if I were to publish any mistruths about the matter or their business "such as unfounded suggestion of harassment; we will take appropriate legal action to prevent such defamation." Whiter than snow, aren't they!?

Indeed. The thing with the not relying on POFA statement, is surely that Excel/VCS were BPA members when this PCN was issued (pre POFA) and continued to be in BPA for the early days of POPLA, so how can they now apply their new status to this PCN?

Thanks again for your advice - I really appreciate you, and other contributors, giving up your time to help us all. As well as advice it is great to feel we are not alone in all this and be given the kick to keep on fighting.

Yes. In the letter to which they are replying I said that I had complained to relevant bodies and individuals and also contacted BBC Watchdog. I am not sure if that is what prompted their tesponse.

I did send a subsequent letter (I am replying to every letter even though they overlap and conflict) and i quoted H Grenslade and I think i referred to the current press interest in misuse of the courts and that taking a case from early 2012 to court could be seen as a waste of court time (letter on work computer so i will check - I was losing my patience at this point so hope it wasn't wrong to say this). I am guessing this is what they are referring to in their reply, even though they only say they are replying to an earlier letter.

Am I right that they can't take a pre POFA PCN and apply post POFA standards to it - esp if VCS members of BPA at the time?

Also, just checked the letter they sent dated 22/8/16 which they say "you will note that the letter dated 22 August 2016 was marked "Without Prejudice"....." (they say this letter offering a reduction was an attempt to reach an amicable settlement and a goodwill gesture and goes on to explain why it was marked Without Prejudice and what this meant) .... well I've just checked and the letter and I can't see that marked on it anywhere! i will get a colleague to check tomorrow in case I am being stupid, but I have checked more than once. It gets more strange as time goes on