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
    • Maxcens
    • By Maxcens 20th Mar 17, 11:05 AM
    • 7Posts
    • 5Thanks
    Maxcens
    BW Legal court threat for a 6 years old Parking ticket
    • #1
    • 20th Mar 17, 11:05 AM
    BW Legal court threat for a 6 years old Parking ticket 20th Mar 17 at 11:05 AM
    Hi Everyone,
    I received on Friday the 17th of March a letter from BW Legal (on behalf of Excel Parking) notifying me for an alleged parking ticket contracted in February 2011.
    These People are threatening me to go to court.
    Now I have done my research and it seems that being over 6 years old, this simple contract will be statute barred because of the Limitation act 1980. I would like to point out that I have never talked to this people or the company that they represent during these 6 years. Nor I have made any payments.
    Am I right to think that they cannot, indeed, take me to court?
    On the other hand, the alleged parking ticket was issued in 2011 before the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which states that only the driver and not the register keeper is responsible.
    Once again, am I safe to think that they cannot inforce any charge to me on this matter?

    Finally, I believe that I am right and I would like this nonsense to stop. From what I understand, these people will never stop regardless of the legality of what they say.
    This letter has deeply affected me and my family by the amount of stress and worry it brought. Could you help me write to them?

    thanks
    Max
Page 1
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 20th Mar 17, 1:26 PM
    • 6,860 Posts
    • 6,828 Thanks
    pogofish
    • #2
    • 20th Mar 17, 1:26 PM
    • #2
    • 20th Mar 17, 1:26 PM
    Search for "Bw Legal Pre POFA" in this forum - There are great many threads on how to see them-off. A bit of letter tennis can be involved though.

    Post two of the Newbies Sticky also contains some pertinent info and IIRC a Link from Bargepole.
    Last edited by pogofish; 20-03-2017 at 1:28 PM.
    • Maxcens
    • By Maxcens 20th Mar 17, 2:00 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Maxcens
    • #3
    • 20th Mar 17, 2:00 PM
    • #3
    • 20th Mar 17, 2:00 PM
    Thank you. I will look into that
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 20th Mar 17, 2:28 PM
    • 521 Posts
    • 788 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #4
    • 20th Mar 17, 2:28 PM
    • #4
    • 20th Mar 17, 2:28 PM
    The Limitation Act is a slam dunk. No question. So you need to do nothing other than write to say the claim is statute barred. It quite clearly is. I don't see why you need to get into pre-POFA "I wasn't the driver" arguments. They are irrelevant if it's statute barred.


    Write back a one-liner on limitation, and end by saying that any further correspondence from them will be treated as acts of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act and you will report them to the police.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 20th Mar 17, 2:28 PM
    • 521 Posts
    • 788 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #5
    • 20th Mar 17, 2:28 PM
    • #5
    • 20th Mar 17, 2:28 PM
    If they carry on, report them AND complain to the SRA
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 20th Mar 17, 2:54 PM
    • 444 Posts
    • 858 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #6
    • 20th Mar 17, 2:54 PM
    • #6
    • 20th Mar 17, 2:54 PM
    Once you've told them that this is 'statute barred' they no longer have reasonable cause to process your data, under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act (DPA). So make sure you inform them of this.

    If they do continue to pursue you (and BWL are just about stupid enough to do so) then they are leaving themselves wide open to a 'breach of DPA' claim

    Objection to Processing
    "You should consider this a Section 10 Notice which gives you 21 days to respond or I will make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Further, if you and/or your client continue to process my data I will seek damages for distress for this continued data protection contravention. Vidal-Hall v Google [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) establishes that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages for a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) could include non-pecuniary damage. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750 so you may consider yourselves and your clients on notice of my intention and the distressing effects on me, of your data mishandling.

    As your client has no legal reason to pursue the registered keeper in this case I now consider this matter closed. Do not contact me again save to confirm your compliance with the section 10 notice.”
    • Maxcens
    • By Maxcens 20th Mar 17, 3:07 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Maxcens
    • #7
    • 20th Mar 17, 3:07 PM
    • #7
    • 20th Mar 17, 3:07 PM
    Perfect, that's exatly what I wanted to see.
    I will write a letter and send it out today.
    I will let you know what BW legal has to say.
    Cheers
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 20th Mar 17, 3:41 PM
    • 38,499 Posts
    • 76,933 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #8
    • 20th Mar 17, 3:41 PM
    • #8
    • 20th Mar 17, 3:41 PM
    I would have said that in March this year they had no reasonable cause to ask for your data in the first place, so I would fire off a DPA complaint anyway.

    I would also want ask the DVLA why they released the data for a statute barred alleged parking incident.
    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
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 20th Mar 17, 4:07 PM
    • 2,019 Posts
    • 1,922 Thanks
    DoaM
    • #9
    • 20th Mar 17, 4:07 PM
    • #9
    • 20th Mar 17, 4:07 PM
    I would have said that in March this year they had no reasonable cause to ask for your data in the first place, so I would fire off a DPA complaint anyway.

    I would also want ask the DVLA why they released the data for a statute barred alleged parking incident.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Where are you seeing that they sought DVLA data in March this year? Excel may well have sought the data in 2011. (Which opens another can of worms ... why did they hold onto the data for that length of time?)
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 20th Mar 17, 4:39 PM
    • 38,499 Posts
    • 76,933 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Where are you seeing that they sought DVLA data in March this year? Excel may well have sought the data in 2011. (Which opens another can of worms ... why did they hold onto the data for that length of time?)
    Originally posted by DoaM
    Fair point. In which case it might be worth asking the DVLA when the keeper data was applied for.
    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
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 20th Mar 17, 6:30 PM
    • 1,895 Posts
    • 2,624 Thanks
    nigelbb
    Excel can only have purchased keeper details back in 2011. As I recall the DVLA allows them to buy the data up to six months after the parking event but no later. For BW Legal to threaten court when there is no possibility of such an action needs a strong complaint to the SRA.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 20th Mar 17, 7:30 PM
    • 4,898 Posts
    • 6,047 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Just shows how incompetent BWLegal are.

    I would imagine that BWL said to Excel that everyting would be OK, Excel fell for it as they seem to do a lot of recently when they employ BWL.

    Just another BWL joke
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Kite2010
    • By Kite2010 20th Mar 17, 10:30 PM
    • 4,096 Posts
    • 3,484 Thanks
    Kite2010
    What are the chances the idiots at BW Legal will still attempt a court case even with the charge older than the Limitation Act allows?
    • Maxcens
    • By Maxcens 21st Mar 17, 8:46 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Maxcens
    What are the chances the idiots at BW Legal will still attempt a court case even with the charge older than the Limitation Act allows?
    Should I even bother replying to them? I mean wouldn't that give them another reason to write threatening letter to me?
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 21st Mar 17, 9:26 AM
    • 4,898 Posts
    • 6,047 Thanks
    beamerguy
    What are the chances the idiots at BW Legal will still attempt a court case even with the charge older than the Limitation Act allows?
    Originally posted by Kite2010
    It's because BWLegal are so incompetent, they may well proceed
    and be whooped yet again
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 21st Mar 17, 9:29 AM
    • 4,898 Posts
    • 6,047 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Should I even bother replying to them? I mean wouldn't that give them another reason to write threatening letter to me?
    Originally posted by Maxcens
    YES, do what lamilad says.
    You need to send this warning shot across their bow.

    If their limited brain power ignores it, at least you will have something to show a judge ..... then the judge can whoop them
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 21st Mar 17, 9:38 AM
    • 521 Posts
    • 788 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    No, you should reply. If they are going to proceed, they'll proceed anyway. If you've written to point out the limitation problem, you'll have a stronger case to get this thrown out immediately. And I honestly would report them for harassment if they carry on. That's what it is. And the SRA complaint: solicitors should not be threatening proceedings which they know or should know are statute barred.


    If proceedings are issued, write to the court immediately and ask for strikeout under CPR Rule 3.4. Technically you are supposed to issue an application notice (form N244)- which costs you a £255 court fee. However, the court has the discretion to make an order of its own volition (CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1 provides that the court can summarily dispose of issues which do not need full investigation and trial), or to accept a letter from you and treat it as if it were a formal application (CPR Part 23.3(2)(b) provides specifically that the court may dispense with the requirement for an application notice). The court can also deal with the matter on paper rather than requiring a hearing (CPR Rule 3.8(c))


    So you write and ask the judge to make an order and point out his/her authority under these rules, enclose a copy of your letter to them telling them they are out of time and the claim is clearly statute barred, and cross your fingers the judge deals with it on paper. However, many judges are lazy or nervous of doing things like this - if the judge won't do it, you either apply (if you win you get the £255 back in costs) or just let the proceedings run their course with a 1-line defence and 1-line witness statement simply saying "this case is statute barred" with the relevant dates and quote from the statute.


    Honestly, you have absolutely nothing to worry about (trust me, I'm a lawyer).
    • hoohoo
    • By hoohoo 21st Mar 17, 9:49 AM
    • 1,635 Posts
    • 2,996 Thanks
    hoohoo
    You should stall them.

    There is a grey area on when the clock starts ticking, which is not the data of parking, or the date they sent the invoice, but when that invoice became overdue. So it could be 1-2 months after the event, depending on circumstances.

    I would therefore write stating the debt is denied and if they disagree ask for a copy of the original PCN and signage in place at the time.

    This should stall them for the required time
    Dedicated to driving up standards in parking
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 21st Mar 17, 10:11 AM
    • 521 Posts
    • 788 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Good point hoohoo
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 21st Mar 17, 10:31 AM
    • 444 Posts
    • 858 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Good point hoohoo
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Agreed, do as hoohoo says
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

148Posts Today

1,191Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • As I've said before - energy price cap sounds good, and will likely be popular, but there's a big risk of making th? https://t.co/ubeV9vnmU7

  • Just seen @IvoGraham doing stand up in a comedy club. Superb, witty, self depricating, clever stuff. Go see him if you get the chance

  • RT @ChrissyNunn: New one from @Tesco today.. "The sale of Goods Act is just legislation, it's like a guideline, it's not law" @MartinSLewis?

  • Follow Martin