Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Mahone1302
    • By Mahone1302 10th Jun 16, 5:55 PM
    • 55Posts
    • 71Thanks
    Mahone1302
    Excel & BW Legal
    • #1
    • 10th Jun 16, 5:55 PM
    Excel & BW Legal 10th Jun 16 at 5:55 PM
    A few days ago I started a thread about Parking Eye. This one is still on going however I did mention during that thread another ticket I had received, from Excel. This one had gone quiet but has now come back and I need advice on what to do here.

    Back in November my car was parked by the driver in an Excel P&D car park. A ticket was bought and displayed for 2 hours parking however however this was overstayed by approx 15 minutes. A PCN/NtD from Excel Parking was left on the windscreen for the driver.

    Due to personal issues of the driver, the ticket got lost among a load of paperwork and completely forgotten about.

    It wasn't until early March when I picked up some letters from an old address (where I had lived until the December, and would have been the RK address at the time) that I opened two up from 'Rossendales Collect' dated at the beginning and middle of February. The first one talked about how 'since our last letter' I hadn't made arrangements to pay, and the second stating if I didn't pay up the debt would be returned to Excel. I did a bit of research and noted two things:

    1) For Excel to hold me liable as keeper, they'd need to serve an NtK within 56 days (I think?) of the parking event. No NtK had been received.
    2) The advice was to ignore debt collectors.

    At the time I was obviously way out of appeals time anyway, and as I hadn't received an NtK I wasn't too concerned as I didn't think Excel would be able to ultimately hold me liable and didn't feel it necessary to inform them that I had moved house. Unfortunately a few days ago I picked up some more letters, one of which was an NtK from Excel dated 10/12/2015; and thus within the 56 days from the parking event. This must have got lost and not passed on immediately.

    I picked up some more letters today and one was from BW Legal. It is dated 06/06/16 states "FINAL NOTICE". It begins by stating that further to their letter on 06/05/16 the balance of £154 hadn't been paid.. I haven't received any such letter however recent history has taught more that this doesn't mean it wasn't sent.

    I've done a bit of research on this forum and what appears to be the most important bit of this letter is the bit that states:

    "Our client now requires full payment of the Balance within 10 days from the date of this letter, this date being 16 June 2016, failing which our client has instructed us to commence County Court proceedings against you........"

    Would this be a Letter Before Court?

    If so, what is my next step? I'm aware that I've damaged by chances of beating this ticket by not appealing within the relevant times etc, however am I right in thinking that even if it did go to court (which I understand can be a lottery) and I did lose, the amount I'd be ordered to pay wouldn't be much more than the £154 I'm currently being asked for anyway? I'm aware that should I lose at court then I won't get a CCJ until I fail to pay what I'm ordered to pay.

    I'll be popping to the car park tomorrow with a view to looking at signage etc for defence in court. Any other advice?
    Last edited by Mahone1302; 22-11-2016 at 12:29 PM.
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Sep 16, 10:54 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,243 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Add this to your SRA and CSA complaint. They are taking the mickey, this has got to be exposed.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Castle
    • By Castle 24th Sep 16, 11:26 PM
    • 1,060 Posts
    • 1,315 Thanks
    Castle
    Also send a complaint to the ICO for breach of the 4th principle of the 1998 Data Protection Act:-
    "4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date."
    • yotmon
    • By yotmon 24th Sep 16, 11:52 PM
    • 352 Posts
    • 466 Thanks
    yotmon
    Bizarrely I've been handed a letter today, that got sent to my old address, and it's from Excel / BW.

    The front page is a letter from Excel explaining that my account has been passed to their legal team. The rear page is a letter from BW explaining that they have been instructed by Excel etc, seems to be their stock first letter. Same reference no and PCN no as the previous letters.

    Oddly enough this is the letter I never received as part of the chain before. What on earth are they playing at?
    Originally posted by Mahone1302
    That's strange. These 2 letters posted in the same envelope from Excel/BWLegal are normally the first letter(s) you receive. I think you have totally confused BW, to such an extent that they haven't got a clue what they have or haven't sent you. Basically they don't know their !!!!! from their elbow
    • Mahone1302
    • By Mahone1302 29th Sep 16, 8:33 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    Mahone1302
    Unfortunately I've not yet got around to replying to BW Legal nor complaining to the SRA, I've been far too busy. Are there are template letters out there for an SRA complaint? Save me writing from scratch.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Sep 16, 9:42 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,243 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    LoveNorfolk's thread on here has one posted by pappa golf in August. It was written by a legally qualified person who has knowledge of the private parking scam of PPC World. You are welcome to plagiarise and adapt it.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Mahone1302
    • By Mahone1302 9th Oct 16, 7:43 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    Mahone1302
    They've clearly cocked up somewhere... today I've received a 'Final Notice' that was addressed to my old address dated 27th September 2016. It appears they're cycling through their letter chain again, after seemingly giving up on me? It's an exact copy of a letter which they sent me back in June - also to my old address, though admittedly at this time they were unaware that I had moved.

    I'm on a late shift on Tuesday, so I'll be sending several emails out.. One to them, one to the SRA, and some others..
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Oct 16, 8:40 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,243 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hmmm...we've seen them muck this up before like you describe.

    Do make a strong complaint to Mrs May and your MP as well as the SRA and CSA.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Mahone1302
    • By Mahone1302 18th Oct 16, 12:07 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    Mahone1302
    Well I wrote back to BW Legal last Wednesday (as below). Still heard nothing yet. Is it sad that I actually get quite excited when I find one of their letters in my postbox? I do enjoy reading their rubbish and tearing it with my response later on.

    Unfortunately I've not had time to do the SRA/CSA/ICO complaints just yet.

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I write in response to your letters dated 1xxxx, 2xxxx and 3xxxx.


    On 1xxxx you wrote to me asking only if I could confirm the full name and address of the driver of my vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. Please note that I am under no obligation to provide you with this information, and it is down to your client to identify the driver themselves. Your client had the option to hold me liable as keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, but failed to issue a Notice to Keeper in line with the legislation, and as such has absolutely no lawful basis upon which to pursue me for this alleged contravention.


    On 2xxx you wrote to me informing me that you had been instructed by Excel Parking Services. This is somewhat bizarre considering I have been in correspondence with yourselves since xx June 2016. This letter appears to be a template copy of your initial letter sent to people following instruction by Excel. I suggest that some sort of error has occurred on your system. Furthermore this letter was sent to my old address despite you being informed of my current address several months ago.


    On xxxx3 you wrote to me a 'Final Notice.' Again this is somewhat bizarre considering your sent me a final notice identical to this one, on xx June 2016. Again this was sent to my old address. It appears that you have restarted sending me your sequence of debt collection letters, despite me previously informing you of the following:


    - I have no liability for this 'balance'
    - Your client has failed to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such their claim is against the driver of the vehicle.
    - Elliot v Loake is irrelevant and does not apply in this case.
    - There is no reasonable assumption in law that the registered keeper was the driver.
    - Excel nor yourselves have any legal basis to hold me responsible for this 'balance'
    - If you believe that such a basis does exist, I wish to be informed of this.
    - In the absence of such a basis, I require Excel and yourselves to cease processing my data as required by Section 10 of the Data Protection Act (Please note: as this requirement has been ignored, your breach will be reported to the ICO)


    Furthermore a complaint to the Solicitor Regulation Authority is now being put together due to your misleading claims surrounding various case law, attempts to claim for legal costs that the Civil Procedure Rules do not allow for, and failure to adhere to the DPA.


    As previously stated, your clients claim is against the driver. Unless you or your client can demonstrate a lawful basis upon which to hold me liable, I expect no further correspondence from yourselves.



    Regards,
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 18th Oct 16, 1:43 PM
    • 5,561 Posts
    • 4,268 Thanks
    The Deep
    Keep up the good work, it costs them money.


    They will probably come back with Elliott v Loake, are you familiar with it. it has no relevance to Contract Law.


    Do not delay your complaint to the SRA.
    • Mahone1302
    • By Mahone1302 21st Nov 16, 10:56 AM
    • 55 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    Mahone1302
    Well after almost a month of nothing, BW Legal have written to me again. This letter is basically a duplicate of the one they sent to me in July, although this time they have properly referred to their client as being Excel and not VCS. The letter isn't the same word for word, but basically says the same.

    They mention that they are not relying on POFA, then reasonably presuming I am driver by E v L, which I've already told them is irrelevant.

    I'm going to reply, firstly referring them to my previous letter to them in reply to the last time they sent me 'this' letter (see http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5477023#14) however I'll add a bit more:

    - HG quote on understanding keeper liability.
    - Quote some recent cases where BW/Excel have been beaten in court when not using POFA.

    Anything else worth adding?
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 21st Nov 16, 11:09 AM
    • 4,113 Posts
    • 4,719 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Well after almost a month of nothing, BW Legal have written to me again. This letter is basically a duplicate of the one they sent to me in July, although this time they have properly referred to their client as being Excel and not VCS. The letter isn't the same word for word, but basically says the same.

    They mention that they are not relying on POFA, then reasonably presuming I am driver by E v L, which I've already told them is irrelevant.

    I'm going to reply, firstly referring them to my previous letter to them in reply to the last time they sent me 'this' letter (see http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5477023#14) however I'll add a bit more:

    - HG quote on understanding keeper liability.
    - Quote some recent cases where BW/Excel have been beaten in court when not using POFA.

    Anything else worth adding?
    Originally posted by Mahone1302
    BWLegal about to c*ck it up yet again. ???

    Don't BWLegal know the reasons why they lose in court ? SEEMS NOT ? and this pure rubbish again about E v L

    Keep it going BWLegal, we all need a good laugh and we assume you will make us laugh week after week as you delve into the land of ignorance ... starting with wasting the courts time
    Last edited by beamerguy; 21-11-2016 at 11:30 AM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Nov 16, 12:02 PM
    • 10,960 Posts
    • 16,354 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Have you complained yet to the SRA?
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    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.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • Mahone1302
    • By Mahone1302 21st Nov 16, 12:07 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    Mahone1302
    Not as yet...
    • Mahone1302
    • By Mahone1302 21st Nov 16, 12:14 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    Mahone1302
    So here's my draft so far:



    Dear Sir/Madam,
    RE: Your reference xxxxxxx



    I write in response to your letter dated November 2016. Please note that this appears to be a duplication of a letter which you sent to me on July 2016 & August 2016. As such I refer you to my response that was sent to you on September 2016, as below:


    I write in response to your letter dated August 2016, attached to which was a letter dated July 2016, which was sent by yourselves to an incorrect address despite you having been informed of the correct address.


    As I have previously informed you I maintain no responsibility for this 'balance'. Your client, Excel, have written to me as the registered keeper of a vehicle, of which they allege that on November 2015, the driver of that vehicle breached the terms and conditions of one of their car parks. Excel have failed to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and as such have no legal basis upon which they can hold me, the registered keeper, liable for this 'balance.' As I can not legally be held liable for this balance, I require BW Legal & Excel to cease processing my data. Please take this as a Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act.


    In your letter you brought my attention to 'Elliot v Loake.' I am indeed acutely aware of this criminal case, whereby the registered keeper was presumed to also be the driver due to overwhelming evidence, including forensic evidence. I do not however see how this is relevant to a breach of parking conditions on Excel's car park. Should there be forensic evidence that as yet I have not been made privy too, I look forward to seeing this. Should it not be forthcoming then I will inform the Solicitors Regulation Authority that you are wrongly citing criminal case law in relation to a completely unrelated and dissimilar civil matter.


    It should not be for an unrepresented member of the public such as my self, to point out to a professional law firm that they are trying to pursue a debt without the necessary legal basis to do so. Should BW Legal or Excel continue to pursue me for this 'balance' then I require an explicit and clear reason as to what legal basis exists to hold me responsible.


    Should my request under S.10 DPA not be fulfilled, I will report you to the ICO.


    It should also not be necessary that I, as a consumer, must remind you that your £54 legal charges cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court. They are not my concern and I refer you to CPR 27.14.


    Should you continue to pursue me for a 'balance' without legal basis, I will report you to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.


    Further to this I bring your attention to comments of Henry Greenslade, barrister and previous lead adjudicator for POPLA, on Keeper Liability in the POPLA 2015 Annual Report: "However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort."


    I would be most grateful if you could bring this to the attention of Excel.


    Furthermore I wish to remind you of the following County Court cases where BW Legal and Excel brought a claim against a registered keeper of a vehicle, provided no evidence that he was the driver, attempted to use Elliot v Loake to presume the keeper was the driver, but was unsuccessful:


    Excel v Mr L at Skipton – 17/11/2016 - The judge dismissed the claim, summing it up as follows, saying it boiled down to two things:
    1. Either the claimant could prove the defendant was the driver, which they did not.
    Or
    2. They could comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to pursue the defendant as the keeper, which it was proved they did not.


    Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 at Stockport - 31/10/2016 - Claim dismissed as Excel had not complied with the mandatory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to invoke keeper liability, Excel did not provide evidence of who the driver was, and Elliot v Loake was not persuasive and could be distinguished.


    It is quite clear in law that compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is the only way that an operator can hold the registered keeper liable for a parking charge without providing evidence that they were the driver at the time of the parking event.


    In addition to your claim for £54 legal costs being unrecoverable in a small claims court as per CPR 27.14, I also bring your attention to schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2015: The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified). The Notice to Keeper sent to myself on December 2015 quite clearly states £100, not £154.


    I have now informed you on two occasions (emails dated October 2016 and September 2016) that absent of any lawful basis upon which to hold me liable for this charge, BW Legal nor Excel have any reason to continue processing my data and as such must cease immediately as per Section 10 of the Data Protection Act. Should this third request not be adhered to I will complain to the Information Commissioner and may pursue your client for damages. I refer you to Google v Vidal-Hall and also Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199, which provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Nov 16, 12:18 PM
    • 10,960 Posts
    • 16,354 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well you need to get that off soonest. One of your main points of complaint is their misleading use of the E-v-L case to exert pressure when this has now clearly been confirmed at court that it does not apply to private parking cases.

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/football-story-nothing-to-do-with-wayne.html

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/excel-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    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.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 21st Nov 16, 12:26 PM
    • 36,436 Posts
    • 73,226 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    You really must get on with the complaints to the SRA and ICO. You should have sent a letter each and every time you got one from BWL. This would add more weight than one long list of complaints.

    Please, please find time to send a raft of complaints. The only way this sort of rubbish will stop is if everyone affected bombards the SRA and ICO about their dreadful behaviour.

    In addition, this bit from your post 34 doesn't make sense.

    In addition to your claim for £54 legal costs being unrecoverable in a small claims court as per CPR 27.14, I also bring your attention to schedule 4 ...

    Shouldn't that be, recoverable? (It reads as though they claim the 54 quid is unrecoverable.)
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 21-11-2016 at 12:42 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Nov 16, 1:57 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,243 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So here's my draft so far:



    Dear Sir/Madam,
    RE: Your reference xxxxxxx


    I write in response to your letter dated November 2016. Please note that this appears to be a duplication of a letter which you sent to me on July 2016 & August 2016. As such I refer you to my response that was sent to you on September 2016, as below:

    I write in response to your letter dated August 2016, attached to which was a letter dated July 2016, which was sent by yourselves to an incorrect address despite you having been informed of the correct address.


    As I have previously informed you I maintain no responsibility for this 'balance'. Your client, Excel, have written to me as the registered keeper of a vehicle, of which they allege that on November 2015, the driver of that vehicle breached the terms and conditions of one of their car parks. Excel have failed to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and as such have no legal basis upon which they can hold me, the registered keeper, liable for this 'balance.' As I can not legally be held liable for this balance, I require BW Legal & Excel to cease processing my data. Please take this as a Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act.

    In your letter you brought my attention to 'Elliot v Loake.' I am indeed acutely aware of this criminal case, whereby the registered keeper was presumed to also be the driver due to overwhelming evidence, including forensic evidence. I do not however see how this is relevant to a breach of parking conditions on Excel's car park. Should there be forensic evidence that as yet I have not been made privy too, I look forward to seeing this. Should it not be forthcoming then I will inform the Solicitors Regulation Authority that you are wrongly citing criminal case law in relation to a completely unrelated and dissimilar civil matter.

    It should not be for an unrepresented member of the public such as my self, to point out to a professional law firm that they are trying to pursue a debt without the necessary legal basis to do so. Should BW Legal or Excel continue to pursue me for this 'balance' then I require an explicit and clear reason as to what legal basis exists to hold me responsible.

    Should my request under S.10 DPA not be fulfilled, I will report you to the ICO.

    It should also not be necessary that I, as a consumer, must remind you that your £54 legal charges cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court. They are not my concern and I refer you to CPR 27.14.

    Should you continue to pursue me for a 'balance' without legal basis, I will report you to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

    Further to this I bring your attention to comments of Henry Greenslade, barrister and previous lead adjudicator for POPLA, on Keeper Liability in the POPLA 2015 Annual Report: "However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort."

    I would be most grateful if you could bring this to the attention of Excel.

    Furthermore I wish to remind you of the following County Court cases where BW Legal and Excel brought a claim against a registered keeper of a vehicle, provided no evidence that he was the driver, attempted to use Elliot v Loake to presume the keeper was the driver, but was unsuccessful:

    Excel v Mr L at Skipton – 17/11/2016 - The judge dismissed the claim, summing it up as follows, saying it boiled down to two things:
    1. Either the claimant could prove the defendant was the driver, which they did not.
    Or
    2. They could comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to pursue the defendant as the keeper, which it was proved they did not.

    Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 at Stockport - 31/10/2016 - Claim dismissed as Excel had not complied with the mandatory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to invoke keeper liability, Excel did not provide evidence of who the driver was, and Elliot v Loake was not persuasive and could be distinguished.

    It is quite clear in law that compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is the only way that an operator can hold the registered keeper liable for a parking charge without providing evidence that they were the driver at the time of the parking event.


    In addition to your claim for £54 legal costs being unrecoverable in a small claims court as per CPR 27.14, I also bring your attention to schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2015: The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified). The Notice to Keeper sent to myself on December 2015 quite clearly states £100, not £154.

    I have now informed you on two occasions (emails dated October 2016 and September 2016) that absent of any lawful basis upon which to hold me liable for this charge, BW Legal nor Excel have any reason to continue processing my data and as such must cease immediately as per Section 10 of the Data Protection Act. Should this third request not be adhered to I will complain to the Information Commissioner and may pursue your client for damages. I refer you to Google v Vidal-Hall and also Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199, which provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.
    Originally posted by Mahone1302

    Love that letter!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 21st Nov 16, 4:53 PM
    • 994 Posts
    • 908 Thanks
    DoaM
    It is quite clear in law that compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is the only way that an operator can hold the registered keeper liable for a parking charge without providing evidence that they were the driver at the time of the parking event.
    I'd be tempted to put it that way ... underline the word evidence.

    @Fruitcake ... I think it's worded OK ref. £54.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Mahone1302
    • By Mahone1302 22nd Nov 16, 12:23 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    Mahone1302
    So here's my final draft, I've changed the formatting a little, but the wording is the same, however I've added some stuff to the end of the letter.

    I write in response to your letter dated 9 November 2016. Please note that this appears to be a duplication of letters which you sent to me on July 2016 & August 2016. As such I refer you to my response that was sent to you on September 2016, as below:


    I write in response to your letter dated August 2016, attached to which was a letter dated July 2016, which was sent by yourselves to an incorrect address despite you having been informed of the correct address.


    As I have previously informed you I maintain no responsibility for this 'balance'. Your client, Excel, have written to me as the registered keeper of a vehicle, of which they allege that on November 2015, the driver of that vehicle breached the terms and conditions of one of their car parks. Excel have failed to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and as such have no legal basis upon which they can hold me, the registered keeper, liable for this 'balance.' As I can not legally be held liable for this balance, I require BW Legal & Excel to cease processing my data. Please take this as a Section 10 Notice under the Data Protection Act.


    In your letter you brought my attention to 'Elliot v Loake.' I am indeed acutely aware of this criminal case, whereby the registered keeper was presumed to also be the driver due to overwhelming evidence, including forensic evidence. I do not however see how this is relevant to a breach of parking conditions on Excel's car park. Should there be forensic evidence that as yet I have not been made privy too, I look forward to seeing this. Should it not be forthcoming then I will inform the Solicitors Regulation Authority that you are wrongly citing criminal case law in relation to a completely unrelated and dissimilar civil matter.


    It should not be for an unrepresented member of the public such as my self, to point out to a professional law firm that they are trying to pursue a debt without the necessary legal basis to do so. Should BW Legal or Excel continue to pursue me for this 'balance' then I require an explicit and clear reason as to what legal basis exists to hold me responsible.


    Should my request under S.10 DPA not be fulfilled, I will report you to the ICO.


    It should also not be necessary that I, as a consumer, must remind you that your £54 legal charges cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court. They are not my concern and I refer you to CPR 27.14.


    Should you continue to pursue me for a 'balance' without legal basis, I will report you to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.


    Further to this I bring your attention to the comments on ‘Keeper Liability’ of Henry Greenslade, Barrister and previous Lead Adjudicator for POPLA London Councils in the POPLA 2015 Annual Report: "However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort."


    I would be most grateful if you could bring this to the attention of Excel.


    Furthermore I wish to remind you of the following County Court cases where BW Legal and Excel brought a claim against the registered keeper of a vehicle, provided no evidence that he was the driver, attempted to use Elliot v Loake to presume the keeper was the driver, but was unsuccessful:


    Excel v Mr L at Skipton – 17/11/2016 - The judge dismissed the claim, summing it up as follows:
    1. Either the claimant could prove the defendant was the driver, which they did not.
    Or
    2. They could comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to pursue the defendant as the keeper, which it was proved they did not.


    Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 at Stockport - 31/10/2016 - Claim dismissed as Excel had not complied with the mandatory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to invoke keeper liability, Excel did not provide evidence of who the driver was, and Elliot v Loake was not persuasive and could be distinguished.


    It is quite clear in law that compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is the only way that an operator can hold the registered keeper liable for a parking charge without providing evidence that they were the driver at the time of the parking event.


    In addition to your £54 legal costs being unrecoverable in a small claims court, as per CPR 27.14, I also bring your attention to Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2015: “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).” The Notice to Keeper sent to myself on December 2015 quite clearly states £100, not £154.


    I have now informed you on two occasions (emails dated October 2016 and September 2016) that absent of any lawful basis upon which to hold me liable for this charge, BW Legal and Excel have no further reason to continue processing my data and as such must cease immediately as per Section 10 of the Data Protection Act. Should this third request not be adhered to I will complain to the Information Commissioner and may pursue your client for damages. I refer you to Google v Vidal-Hall and also Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199, which provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.


    - I have no liability for this 'balance'
    - Your client has failed to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such their claim is against the driver of the vehicle.
    - Elliot v Loake is irrelevant and does not apply in this case.
    - There is no reasonable assumption in law that the registered keeper was the driver.
    - Excel nor yourselves have any legal basis to hold me responsible for this 'balance'
    - If you believe that such a basis does exist, I wish to be informed of this.
    - In the absence of such a basis, I require Excel and yourselves to cease processing my data as required by Section 10 of the Data Protection Act (Please note: as this requirement has been ignored, your breach will be reported to the ICO)


    Furthermore a complaint to the Solicitor Regulation Authority is now being put together due to your misleading claims surrounding various case law, attempts to claim for legal costs that the Civil Procedure Rules do not allow for, and failure to adhere to the DPA.


    As previously stated, your clients claim is against the driver. Unless you or your client can demonstrate a lawful basis upon which to hold me liable, I expect no further correspondence from yourselves other than confirmation that my personal data has been removed from your systems and that your clients claim against me has been discontinued. Should it be your client’s intention to start court proceedings, they must provide a Letter Before Claim which complies with the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-action conduct. Please note that a failure and/or refusal to comply with the Practice Direction will result in a complaint being made to the court and an application for a stay of action and costs pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Practice Direction on non-compliance and sanctions.


    I look forward to hearing from you within 7 days.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,523Posts Today

3,965Users online

Martin's Twitter