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
    • ojloverman
    • By ojloverman 4th Dec 17, 5:07 PM
    • 6Posts
    • 0Thanks
    ojloverman
    Conkai Secuity / BW Legal - how to reply next
    • #1
    • 4th Dec 17, 5:07 PM
    Conkai Secuity / BW Legal - how to reply next 4th Dec 17 at 5:07 PM
    Hello all,
    So I have been duly following instructions from this forum, but now have reached a point where I'm not sure what to do next.

    Background
    A car that I am registered keeper of was allegedly parked without a valid ticket/permit on 7th April 2016 in Kingston Court, Oxford.

    On 18th August 2016 a letter arrived from Conkai Security demanding payment of £100 for the alleged parking contravention. Having searched the forums, I rebutted this letter mentioning POFA and that as the keeper I am not liable due to the 56 day window expiring (NTK arrived 133 days after alleged contravention).

    The next correspondence I received was from a debt collection agency, requesting payment. I rebutted with more information from the forums, denying the debt and and also pointing our their data protection contravention by selling on the keeper details what I am not liable. The letter I sent is on MSE thread: t=5566898 (it won't let me post a link?)

    I heard nothing then until BW Legal dropped me a letter on 9th November asking for £100 + £60 legal fees and a stipulated 16 day reply period. Then on 17th November, before I had had a chance to reply to the first letter, a "final notice" arrived, threatening with Count Court proceedings and referring to a letter sent 18th October.

    I replied to the "final notice" letter pointing out their obvious administrative error. Following a template found on here (I believe gan). I denied the debt. I pointed out that I was not the driver and under POFA they cannot hold me liable. I also point out Elliot v Loake is not applicable in this case. I also threaten them with complaint to CSA and SRA due to them trying to mislead me over £60 legal fees.

    I have now received a response from BW Legal. I will give the highlights below:
    • Client does not intend to rely on POFA
    • My position on Elliot v Loake is noted, however they maintain position on relevance of case and in absence of driver details presume I am the driver
    • Client also intends to rely on Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films 2015. The employee/employer liability case
    • £60 legal fees are reasonable. Payment of these fees forms part of Ts&Cs which 'were agreed by you by parking in the Car Park'. In support of this Claimant intends to rely on Chaplair v Kumari 2015
    • Final comments about disclosure of details as the RK and a statement from the DVLA (weird as I have never mentioned DVLA!)

    So I have 14 days to respond to this. My understanding from having a look online is that Elliot v Loake is not applicable due to it being a criminal case, with overwhelming foresic evidence. Similarly CPS v AJH is not applicable as this an employer/employee liability case, not the same here.

    My question is how to respond to this letter? Do I remind them again of my position of EvL; and also why I think that CPS vs AJH is not applicable? I guess that this is eventually going to end up in court?

    I cannot remember who was the driver at the time, it may have been some friends who borrowed my car on short term insurance from cuvva. Though, I presume it is BW Legal to prove who the driver was and I have to disclose nothing? What are the chances of the judge going on 'balance of probabilities' that I was the driver?
    Last edited by ojloverman; 04-12-2017 at 5:13 PM. Reason: added a link
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 4th Dec 17, 5:39 PM
    • 6,470 Posts
    • 8,296 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 4th Dec 17, 5:39 PM
    • #2
    • 4th Dec 17, 5:39 PM
    I can only think that BWLegal are now suffering with
    the early signs of dementia.

    The courts have already told BWLegal that their
    idiotic claims of other cases are not applicable

    See this thread
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5672664

    BWLEGAL ARE TOLD .....
    BW Legal try Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films yet again. Yawn. Claim dismissed

    Judge explains why Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH films not relevant

    Elliot v Loake/CPS v AJH films rubbished by judge

    Judge "fed up" with BW Legal

    Based on their stupidity, and the courts knowledge of
    BWLegal, a 'balance of probabilities' is not really an option
    for a judge.

    Also, with the time limits they give you, seems like again,
    BWLegal are not complying to the new procedure as from
    1st Oct 2017.

    This is why I think that they have early onset dementia
    Last edited by beamerguy; 04-12-2017 at 5:42 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • ojloverman
    • By ojloverman 4th Dec 17, 5:52 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ojloverman
    • #3
    • 4th Dec 17, 5:52 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Dec 17, 5:52 PM
    So should I refer them to all these cases in my reply? Also, not sure what the new procedures are? Should I mention this my reply?
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 4th Dec 17, 6:06 PM
    • 7,738 Posts
    • 8,010 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #4
    • 4th Dec 17, 6:06 PM
    • #4
    • 4th Dec 17, 6:06 PM
    Conkai Secuity are owned by the same irriots as excell / vcs , a search for elliot and ajh films will show up more via excell /vcs

    ps if Conkai Secuity take you to court it will be a first , check ALL paperwork and signage for leftover excell / vcs stuff , http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Conkai_Security.html
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 4th Dec 17, 6:12 PM
    • 6,470 Posts
    • 8,296 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #5
    • 4th Dec 17, 6:12 PM
    • #5
    • 4th Dec 17, 6:12 PM
    So should I refer them to all these cases in my reply? Also, not sure what the new procedures are? Should I mention this my reply?
    Originally posted by ojloverman
    There is a lot on the net about this
    http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/dr/final-version-of-debt-pre-action-protocol-released-in-force-1-october-2017/

    Once BWLegal comply then that is time to respond.

    If they do not comply that's when the court should be advised.
    In particular "The debtor has 30 days to respond,
    before proceedings may be commenced.


    No point really in listing all their failures, the courts
    already know about them.
    You can say "numerous" and in the rare case you get
    a judge who does not know, retain all the cases in your file.

    So, just wait and see if BWLegal do anything, they clearly
    read this forum, probably to keep up to date with their errors

    Do read up on all the parking prankster links, they are fact
    and there is enough info to see them off

    ======================================
    This forum is proud to have a member called Lamilad who is
    probably a BWLegal slayer ... no doubt he will be along soon
    ======================================
    Last edited by beamerguy; 04-12-2017 at 6:45 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 4th Dec 17, 10:13 PM
    • 1,198 Posts
    • 2,377 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #6
    • 4th Dec 17, 10:13 PM
    • #6
    • 4th Dec 17, 10:13 PM
    I replied to the "final notice" letter pointing out their obvious administrative error. Following a template found on here
    It sounds like you've done all the right things so far and from what you've said to them they will know you've either done your research or are 'forum assisted'. They'll be well aware this means they'll probably loae in court - although, as above, it would be a first for this PPC.

    I wouldn't bother saying anything else to them and certainly don't speak to them on the phone (they will probably try to ring you). Wait and see what happens next... If you get a court claim come back for advice
    • Ryandavis1959
    • By Ryandavis1959 4th Dec 17, 11:26 PM
    • 170 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    Ryandavis1959
    • #7
    • 4th Dec 17, 11:26 PM
    • #7
    • 4th Dec 17, 11:26 PM
    Why don’t you just tell them who was driving the car so that you can discharge ANY liability that you have for the fake PCN? This means you’ll never have to spend another minute dealing with this matter.

    Am I missing something why people are not advised to do this more often? I thought this was a Money Saving website, not a headache extender! If you wasn’t driving then just tell them who was and job done! I’m sure if you told a legal advisor that you wasn’t driving and you’re being falsely accused, they would advise to tell the parking firm who was driving to discharge any possible liability.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 4th Dec 17, 11:28 PM
    • 7,738 Posts
    • 8,010 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #8
    • 4th Dec 17, 11:28 PM
    • #8
    • 4th Dec 17, 11:28 PM
    Why donít you just tell them who was driving the car so that you can discharge ANY liability that you have for the fake PCN? This means youíll never have to spend another minute dealing with this matter.

    Am I missing something why people are not advised to do this more often? I thought this was a Money Saving website, not a headache extender! If you wasnít driving then just tell them who was and job done! Iím sure if you told a legal advisor that you wasnít driving and youíre being falsely accused, they would advise to tell the parking firm who was driving to discharge any possible liability.
    Originally posted by Ryandavis1959

    you are missing something , please go and read POFa instead of giving stupid advice ,
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 5th Dec 17, 9:40 AM
    • 6,470 Posts
    • 8,296 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #9
    • 5th Dec 17, 9:40 AM
    • #9
    • 5th Dec 17, 9:40 AM
    Why donít you just tell them who was driving the car so that you can discharge ANY liability that you have for the fake PCN? This means youíll never have to spend another minute dealing with this matter.

    Am I missing something why people are not advised to do this more often? I thought this was a Money Saving website, not a headache extender! If you wasnít driving then just tell them who was and job done! Iím sure if you told a legal advisor that you wasnít driving and youíre being falsely accused, they would advise to tell the parking firm who was driving to discharge any possible liability.
    Originally posted by Ryandavis1959
    Your agenda on this forum by keep telling people to
    name the driver is the same agenda as parking companies.

    Please stop giving such bad information.. and the OP is advised
    to ignore you
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 5th Dec 17, 10:46 AM
    • 1,166 Posts
    • 1,204 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Indeed - OP IGNROE ryandavis. they are just not currently worth listening too, as their advice is suspect.
    • ojloverman
    • By ojloverman 5th Dec 17, 12:24 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ojloverman
    Okay thanks for the advice guys. It would seem to be that I don't have to reply until they have sent a letter before action which complies with the 1st Oct 2017 regs. However, I would be interested in finding out if they have any evidence of who the driver was (CCTV say?). How would I go about replying and requesting this information? Am I even allowed to ask this?

    I am completely ignoring the bogus advice of ryandavis. Even if I could recall who the driver was, it is my prerogative not to divulge this information to a private company.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Dec 17, 12:33 PM
    • 4,757 Posts
    • 3,107 Thanks
    KeithP
    The PPC has no evidence of who the driver is unless someone has told them.

    Even if they have a very clear picture of the driver, they have no way of converting that into a name and address.

    Even the police don't have that facility.
    .
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 5th Dec 17, 1:00 PM
    • 6,470 Posts
    • 8,296 Thanks
    beamerguy
    However, I would be interested in finding out if they have any evidence of who the driver was (CCTV say?). How would I go about replying and requesting this information? Am I even allowed to ask this?

    I am completely ignoring the bogus advice of ryandavis. Even if I could recall who the driver was, it is my prerogative not to divulge this information to a private company.
    Originally posted by ojloverman
    PPC's do not use CCTV and have no right of access
    Data protection comes into play.
    PPC's have enough problems using their own ANPR
    which is only for number plate capture

    It's like some of the idiot PPC's who claim a person
    left a site, what are they doing, are they predators ?

    PPC's in general are rogue traders and will get up to
    anything to extort money.

    And, of course it is up to you not to name the driver
    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

131Posts Today

3,280Users 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