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
    • mowkid
    • By mowkid 19th Sep 16, 12:59 PM
    • 78Posts
    • 120Thanks
    mowkid
    Excel/bw chasing my wifes carer
    • #1
    • 19th Sep 16, 12:59 PM
    Excel/bw chasing my wifes carer 19th Sep 16 at 12:59 PM
    On 8th June 2011 a lady who is a carer for my wife received a PCN from Excel. Following the prevailing advice at the time she sent a letter to Excel telling them that they needed to establish who was the driver
    Evetually it went to Rossendale and in 2015 she received a notification intimating that they had handed the claim back to Excel.
    On the 25 July this year it all started up again with a letter from bwlegal.
    Foolishly perhaps I offered to help her as best I could with letter/emails etc as she has no access to a computer or experience of same.
    She has received all the standard letters from bwlegal to which I have written replies for her using advice and tips from this forum. They have come up eith the usual stuff, claiming the £54 fee, Elliot V Loake and so on.
    I have sent a complsint to the SRA using tips from this forum but no offical reply yet. She did 'phone them this morning to get a state of play and the said sometime tis week. At the same time she did slip in a question as to whether they had a number of complaints re bwlegal and they said no they hadn't. ( maybe that was a white lie to save confidentiality)
    She is now in panic mode because she has received a letter headed LETTER OF CLAIM giving her until 29/9/2016 to pay up and caliming that they have no response from her to their letter of 25th July when in fact they refer to one of them in a letter dated 24th August. This latest letter contains a table of costs totalling£272.15 they claim she would be made to pay if the matter whent to County Court

    This is the latest. Hope if got it on in useable form bieng a bit of a computer dummy.

    Dear Madam
    LETTER OF CLAIM
    Our Client: Excel Parking Services Ltd Parking Charge Nonee (PCN): Camera
    Account Number: ~ 1 Date of Contravention: 8June 2011
    Vehicle Registration: 0 i Balance Due: £154.00
    Contravention Description: Parked for longer than maximum period permitted.
    Contravention Locatiou:~ @ J raaAnpr Charging Scbeme Std tU ~
    Further to our letter dated 25 July 2016 where we requested that you either pay the Balance in full or provide your
    detailed grounds for disputing the PCN, by 10 August 2016, we are yet to receive payment andlor a response to our
    letter.
    Please pay the Balance by 29 September 20 I6 to prevent legal action from being taken. For the avoidance of doubt
    tbe Balance relates to the £100.00 parking charge and £54.00 for our client's initial legal fees, which were detailed
    in the car park terms and conditions.
    County Court Proceedings
    As we have previously brought to your attention, in the event County Court proceedings are issued, we will be
    seeking recovery of not only the Balance but our client's court fees, further solicitor's costs and statutory interest
    which are estimated to be the following:
    ..
    [Principal Debt + Initial Legal Costs £154.00
    Estimated Interest £42.15
    Estimated Court Fees £25.00
    Estimated Solicitors Costs £50.00
    EstimatedTotaJ £2'iLlS::
    We also wish to bring to your attention the case of Parking Eye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in which the
    Supreme Court held that parking charges serve a legitimate commercial interest and are neither extravagant nor
    unconscionable. This case eliminates the main defence that you may have should the matter go to Court and this
    case will be relied upon, by onr-olieat, in any County Court proceedings.
    You should also note that if your claim has already been processed through an Independent Appeal Service ("!AS")
    and an !AS has dismissed your appeal, then it is likely that a County Court will come to a similar conclusion and
    your defence will be unsuccessful.
    If our client successfully obtains a County Court Judgment ("CCJ") against you (which is likely), then a CCJ will
    be recorded on your credit file for 6 years unless you satisfy the CCJ in full within a month of the CCJ being
    entered. A CCJ on your credit file may .affectyour ability to obtain future credit and may affect your employability.
    If you fail to comply with the CCJ order we reserve the right to take one of the following enforcement actions to
    recover this debt:
    • Warrant of Control: A County Court Bailiff visiting you at your home,
    • Attachment of Earnings: Your employer may be ordered to deduct payments from your wages.
    • Order to Attend Court For Questioning: You being ordered to attend Court to disclose your fmancial
    circumstances.
    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
    (lithe Code") and its obligations under the Civil Procedure Rules ("CPR"). All previous correspondence in this
    matter will be brought to the attention of the Court should this point be raised.
    What You Need To Do Now
    To avoid proceedings being commenced and the above additional fees, costs and estimated interest being incurred,
    __ ..._ we !equest you pay J:.heBalance by 29 September ~O16~
    .-
    We have attached to this letter (once again) our "How to make payment" document, which details the ways in
    which you can pay the Balance. In the event we do not receive payment of the Balance by 29 September 2016, we
    place you on notice that we will commence legal proceedings for the recovery of the Balance without further
    notice.
    If you are unable to pay the Balance immediately, please Call us today on 0113 323 4479 to discuss this matter
    with one of our helpful team. Our team can set up an affordable payment arrangement for you that matches your
    current financial circumstances.
    Yours faithfully
    #j iR-fj'CN{
    BWLegal
Page 5
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 9th Jun 17, 4:52 PM
    • 7,739 Posts
    • 8,010 Thanks
    pappa golf
    The clock starts ticking when you failed to pay. So if the PCN arrived after 20 days and gives 14 days to pay, then the expiry date is parking date + 20 + 14
    Originally posted by hoohoo
    no rules or governing body were in force back in 2011 , so the +20 days +14 is a red herring

    as far as I can establish (as no rules existed) its not the date that they contacted you + some hypothetical time to pay , it the date that you broke the so called "contract" with them

    to quote the OP
    "On 8th June 2011 a lady who is a carer for my wife received a PCN from Excel."

    therefore that was the date of the breach of contract , and 6 yrs (TO THE DAY) runs from there
    Last edited by pappa golf; 09-06-2017 at 4:55 PM.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 9th Jun 17, 5:06 PM
    • 7,739 Posts
    • 8,010 Thanks
    pappa golf
    https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/time-limits-for-recovering-debts/statute-barred-debt.aspx?gclid=CM-G4MaIsdQCFVU_GwodixcOEA

    The cause of action (when the limitation period starts running) for simple contract debts, is usually when your agreement says the creditor is able to take court action because you have fallen behind with payments. This will usually be after one or two missed payments.
    Originally posted by hoohoo

    that is in the case of a signed credit agreement , not a speculative invoice
    • hoohoo
    • By hoohoo 9th Jun 17, 5:48 PM
    • 1,676 Posts
    • 3,110 Thanks
    hoohoo
    that is in the case of a signed credit agreement , not a speculative invoice
    Originally posted by pappa golf
    Would you risk it for the sake of a few more days?

    And why would the cause of action date not be the date when the invoice (speculative or not) is due?
    Dedicated to driving up standards in parking
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 9th Jun 17, 6:30 PM
    • 7,739 Posts
    • 8,010 Thanks
    pappa golf
    back pre POFA2012 the "speculative" invoice was due on the date it was issued , there were no regulations that stated 7 , 14 , 28 days or whatever , there was no proper appeal system , in fact if you did appeal you would have had an automated denial within 20 seconds

    it was only the incorporation of POFa 2012 and the starting of an ATA with a code of practice that enabled the 28 days to pay .


    remember , pre POFa2012 and the introduction of the BPA ATA there was no such "legal" thing as a NTD or NTK , it was just an invoice ISSUED on site (on the date) followed up by begging letters later on
    Last edited by pappa golf; 09-06-2017 at 6:35 PM.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 9th Jun 17, 6:41 PM
    • 745 Posts
    • 1,383 Thanks
    Johnersh
    As a matter of principle, I would argue that limitation is based upon the parking event - the subsequent correspondence is irrelevant.

    An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. [s.5 Limitation Act 1980 - my emphasis]

    The cause of action - the actual breach of the contract - whether an overstay or parking outside the bay is clearly the date of parking, not when you knew someone was chasing you for the money. Further, no signage I have seen specifies payment terms, which strictly speaking means that the fee sought would be due immediately. Thus, 6 years started to run from 9 June 2011 (the first day after the event).

    So unless the Claimant has already issued Court proceedings they're outta there - HAPPY ANNIVERSARY !

    If, however, papers have been lodged at Court (even so much as 24 hours ago), then they are within time. The duty is to start Court proceedings, i.e. MCOL nothing other than issued court issued proceedings will suffice to keep it in play. If that's been done (within reason) they've got as long as they need.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 9th Jun 17, 7:06 PM
    • 7,739 Posts
    • 8,010 Thanks
    pappa golf
    why "Thus, 6 years started to run from 9 June 2011 (the first day after the event).

    there was no legislation , no day after , no 28 days no nothing if the INVOICE for payment was issued on the 8th , then the clock started on the 8th
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 9th Jun 17, 9:40 PM
    • 745 Posts
    • 1,383 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Correct - to a point. The day of the event is day zero. If, for example the ticket was issued at 14:00 hrs on 8/6/11 and you got a claim form issued at 10:00 hrs on 8/6/17 then technically you'd be in time. No such arguments with the analysis above.

    Anyone 'on the ball' would naturally have this issued, at the latest, by 7/6/17 to avoid such argument.
    • mowkid
    • By mowkid 20th Jun 17, 12:45 PM
    • 78 Posts
    • 120 Thanks
    mowkid
    Following the optimistic suggestions posted on this forum I helped my carer lady to formulate a complaint to the SRA re the activities of bwlegal.
    To be honest, I thought all along that it was probably a futile gesture because all so called proffesional bodies close ranks when anything makes waves. The SRA is probably a back side covering operation.
    The attached is from them. They couldn't even get the name correct as My carer lady is neither Mrs or Bertolleti.

    20 June 2017
    Dear Mr Bertolotti,
    Your report regarding BW Legal Services Limited
    I am writing to you regarding the report you made about BW Legal Services Limited ('the firm'). Please accept our apologies for the delay in contacting you about this matter.
    I write to inform you that this matter has now reached a conclusion.
    You were concerned about the firm's practices in relation to the recovery of car parking charges.
    We received a number of reports in addition to yours about the way the firm were dealing with the recovery of debts. As such, we focussed our investigation on whether the firm were recovering debts that were legitimately owed, and whether the firm’s practices were potentially taking unfair advantage of those who had allegedly parked in breach of conditions.
    We have spoken to the firm on a number of occasions about their practices to fully understand how they operate this area of their business. We have also requested various documents, including copies of letters sent by the firm and the car parking company regarding the recovery of car parking charges.
    We have decided to take no disciplinary or regulatory action. We are satisfied that the firm are acting on their client’s (car parking company) instructions and they are instructed on legitimate claims where the car parking firms have been unsuccessful in recovering their parking charges after a number of attempts.
    When a case is subject to investigation, we will, if appropriate, seek to engage constructively with the firm to achieve compliance. In instances where there is an open, co-operative and constructive approach, we may decide to take no formal action.
    Our engagement has resulted in the firm asking their client to add further information to their letters to make details such as legal fees more transparent to the public.
    We are satisfied the firm are committed to working within the requirements of our Code of Conduct. Your reports, and details of our investigation work will be retained on our records, and can be revisited should we have cause to do so.
    We would like to take the opportunity to thank you for raising your concerns with us and hope that this letter offers an explanation for the decision we have made.
    Yours sincerely,
    Ajmer Nahal
    Regulatory Supervisor
    Solicitors Regulation Authority
    Tel: 0121 329 6619  ajmer.nahal@sra.org.uk
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 20th Jun 17, 12:55 PM
    • 6,470 Posts
    • 8,296 Thanks
    beamerguy
    mowkid

    The SRA have proved time after time that they actually run "an old boys club"

    They cannot be trusted as they don't follow their own principals.

    The SRA should take note of what happens in court and actually
    understand why BWLegal are zapped in court which is a result
    of the rubbish they write
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th Jun 17, 3:22 PM
    • 15,927 Posts
    • 24,710 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    A copy and paste response, with possibly some minor amendments, but they've obviously failed to amend the salutation.

    Caught them out!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • mowkid
    • By mowkid 20th Jun 17, 7:20 PM
    • 78 Posts
    • 120 Thanks
    mowkid
    It just goes to prove the old American saying "you can't beat City Hall"
    I tried hard as I know others did to get bw sorted out but good. I also tried to get Smart Parking on the spot for not getting planning permission at Melton Mowbray.
    I've got to concede failure on both scores as the Sir Humphries of this world always have the final say.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jun 17, 12:37 AM
    • 51,787 Posts
    • 65,410 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Dear SRA,

    So to pursue the wrong party and to lie about liability in law, is acceptable, then?

    Shame on you.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • MothballsWallet
    • By MothballsWallet 21st Jun 17, 6:53 AM
    • 11,559 Posts
    • 15,158 Thanks
    MothballsWallet
    It just goes to prove the old American saying "you can't beat City Hall"
    I tried hard as I know others did to get bw sorted out but good. I also tried to get Smart Parking on the spot for not getting planning permission at Melton Mowbray.
    I've got to concede failure on both scores as the Sir Humphries of this world always have the final say.
    Originally posted by mowkid
    Please pass this on to your MP. It's about time these regulators got a massive kick in their privates, so to speak.

    Ofcom, Ofgem, Charities Commission also need this treatment because of how crap they are.
    Always ask yourself one question: What would Gibbs do?
    Married to an immigrant.
    Even my PC is nicknamed "GIBBS".
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 21st Jun 17, 8:38 AM
    • 6,470 Posts
    • 8,296 Thanks
    beamerguy
    people should now up their gain when it comes to

    BWLEGAL ... GLADSTONES -- WRIGHT HASSALL

    If you receive a letter making unfounded threats and false claims, copy it twice
    and send to the SRA and Trading Standards

    Theresa May, as she keeps proving, is useless

    Generally speaking if the boss is useless their staff follow suit and that is what we sit and watch .... one hopeless MP being Marcus Jones DCLG

    Jones continues to be completely ignorant about the
    PARKING SCAM
    Last edited by beamerguy; 21-06-2017 at 8:51 AM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • mowkid
    • By mowkid 6th Jul 17, 10:40 PM
    • 78 Posts
    • 120 Thanks
    mowkid
    The six years are well and truly over now so I guess the lady I was assisting is now totally safe from further harassment. Thanks to anyone on this forum who helped..
    You may recall that before the election there was a meeting of MP's in Westminster Hall when they put the case for PPC reform to the then Minister.
    One of the more elequent of the MP's, a Mr Drew Hendry assures me that he is intending to continue the campaign to get some action on the PPC sharks.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 6th Jul 17, 11:00 PM
    • 6,470 Posts
    • 8,296 Thanks
    beamerguy
    The six years are well and truly over now so I guess the lady I was assisting is now totally safe from further harassment. Thanks to anyone on this forum who helped..
    You may recall that before the election there was a meeting of MP's in Westminster Hall when they put the case for PPC reform to the then Minister.
    One of the more elequent of the MP's, a Mr Drew Hendry assures me that he is intending to continue the campaign to get some action on the PPC sharks.
    Originally posted by mowkid
    In theory you are correct but the vermin could still harass you although if it has timed out, they cannot take you to court.
    It is the court that matters

    If they continue and these cowboys are thick enough to do so, then it's straight to Trading Standards

    I watched that, the only person who seemed to be with it
    was Mogg.
    Nobody should hold their breath about the scam. Until Mrs May
    gets her act together or until there is a leader who takes
    responsibility for the UK's biggest scam ....... nothing will hapen

    I applaud what is happening with the Grenfell Tower disaster, the government is running around in circles
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
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

254Posts Today

1,458Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Nice debating with (all but the rude ones) of you. Bedtime for me now. Goodnight #bbcqt

  • RT @kevmthomas: @MartinSLewis It was a comment you made about the referendum being a binary choice on a non binary issue that helped me rea?

  • To clarify this. Cameron's gamble that having a stark vote'd mean his team won. He gambled wrong (that's not a stat? https://t.co/NSCT3aKvGS

  • Follow Martin