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.
The MSE Forum will be undergoing some maintenance this evening. As a result, some users may experience temporary performance issues. Please use the Site Feedback board to report anything major. Thank you for your patience.

Excel/bw chasing my wifes carer

1235710

Comments

  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    mowkid wrote: »
    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 now
  • mowkid
    mowkid Posts: 86
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    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.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    mowkid wrote: »
    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.
  • mowkid
    mowkid Posts: 86
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    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

    BWLegal
  • pappa_golf
    pappa_golf Posts: 8,895
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    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 untrue
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    edited 13 October 2016 at 11:37AM
    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 BWLegal
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    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.
  • Herzlos
    Herzlos Posts: 14,662
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    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.
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,251
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    a reasonable manor.
    A template reply as we've seen 'manor' used instead of 'manner' just the other day.

    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 case
    Please 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 Street
  • yotmon
    yotmon Posts: 484
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    mowkid wrote: »


    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 ?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards