Vcs pcn

Coupon-mad

Signage evidence can be key so I would get photos with a tape measure next to the lettering, now, in advance.

Nygie

~Finally got the BW Legal letter. Bog standard template saying we haven't pay or appealed. Just shows how in the know they are!

Coupon-mad

Nygie wrote: »

~Finally got the BW Legal letter. Bog standard template saying we haven't pay or appealed. Just shows how in the know they are!

OK so you have replied to that now, I assume? Don't be low hanging fruit, robust responses are need to BW Legal letters. Easy to find examples by searching the forum because we get thread after thread all the same about BW Legal letters, day in day out...

Did you get good photos of the signage terms next to a tape measure to show the tiny font? All good evidence.

Nygie

I have not replied, bee away for a while and it kinda slipped my mind until this morning when we received the "final notice" letter from BW legal. I have some pictures of the signage at the site.
I will have a search about tonight for some templates and see if I can cobble something together.
Must dash back to work now.

Nygie

Sent letter of complaint to SRA.....

I am complaining about BW Legal’s assertions in their 'Letter of Claim' ('Final Notice') datedxx/xx/2016 (copy attached) with reference VCS/T0******* which I received on the xx/xx/2016. The letter includes the following statements by BW Legal which I found alarming and I am advised that these are misleading and untrue:

(1) “If our client successfully obtains a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against you (which is likely), then a CCJ will be recorded on your credit file [...]”

(2) They state that their client also ''reserves the right to commence enforcement proceedings...for recovery of the CCJ award'' as if a CCJ is a fait accompli.

(3) “Please pay the Balance by 03 September 2016 to prevent legal action from being taken. For the avoidance of doubt the 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.”

(4) They also make reference to the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 where they say, ''the Supreme Court held that parking charges were a legitimate commercial interest'' and that ''this case eliminates any defence'' I might have should the matter go to court. Further more the parking contravention was on private property not a car park that can be paid on arrival.


I am advised that those assertions and statements are contrary to the SRA’s Code of Conduct 2011, Chapter 11: Relations with third parties, and particularly are covered under Indicative Behaviours IB(11.7) and IB(11.8).

These statements take unfair advantage of the addressee’s lack of legal knowledge where they have not instructed a lawyer, by stating untruths and making unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims. I am an unrepresented consumer and was distressed to read the letter from BW Legal and was certainly misled by it. This complaint is now sent to the SRA as a result of receiving online advice as regards the fact that these statements breach the SRA Code and such conduct should not be allowed to continue.

Regarding statement (1) and (2) I am advised that BW Legal will know that, even if they were to bring County Court proceedings for their client against the addressee, and even if those were successful, they would not “very likely” end in a CCJ against the addressee; of course a CCJ would only be obtained in such a situation if the addressee, after being taken to court successfully and after being ordered by the County Court to pay BW Legal’s client, would then still not pay. It is unfounded and unsubstantiated for BW Legal to assert that this is a likely scenario and describe 'recovery of the CCJ Award' as if it is almost inevitable. This assertion is made to coerce the addressee of BW Legal’s letter into paying their demand. This is taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee and I was certainly alarmed and distressed to read such statements.

Statement (3) is a clear demand by BW Legal on behalf of their client for a sum of £54.00 that is not legally recoverable. BW Legal will know that it has been held countless times that when instructed to collect a simple debt, demanding from the debtor the debt recovery costs is taking unfair advantage since it cannot be said at that stage that such a cost is legally recoverable; particularly since those costs have not been substantiated at all. This is therefore again clearly taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee.

Statement (4) is absolutely irresponsible. To inform a recipient of a letter about a parking charge which does not in any way match the facts of the Beavis case that they have no defence because it has been 'eliminated' beggars belief and again, I was completely misled by this assertion. Consumers are being coerced into paying charges which bear no relation to the circumstances of the fairly unique 'Beavis case', which I am advised the Supreme Court were at pains to 'Tweet' straight after their decision, turned on the specific legitimate interest of the landowner in a particular retail park, based on the clear terms on the signs in that car park alone. My case is nothing like that case. To mention just one clear matter of possible defence open to me (among others), the signs were wholly different and illegible, which is what caused the issue to arise. But if I was to believe BW Legal's letter I would have thought - as I initially did, in a panic - that I have no defence and must just pay their client.

It is understood that BW Legal is sending out identical Letters of Claim/Final Notices on an industrial scale (for the same client and for other private parking companies) to addressees all of whom will be legally unrepresented. I would therefore respectfully request the SRA to take swift enforcement action to ensure that BW Legal stops issuing assertions and statements which are clearly used to coerce consumer recipients into paying unjustified and unenforceable demands.

Nygie

Had a response from BW Legal saying they reject any suggestions that they use unfair methods to collect the debt quoting again PE Vs Beavis. They have not upheld our complaint see no reason why we should withhold payment from their client!
If they do not hear from us in 14 days they will assume we are happy with their resolution!

Coupon-mad

So you continue the letter/email tennis with them, like on all the hundreds of other BW Legal threads here. Do not go silent, read other BW Legal cases on here an don pepipoo which are chock-full of examples on the next concise response to keep BW Legal back.

And you will see dozens of defences too, should they proceed with one of their baseless robo-claims (and no cases lost on either forum v BW Legal!). This is worth the fight.

Did the SRA say anything regarding their investigation?

Nygie

Reply sent.
Found a nice section on Contrast and illumination
This is off the IPC code of Pratice document.

Contrast and illumination
The colours used on signage should be such that the contrast between the background and
the text makes the wording on the sign clearly legible. Black text on a white background or
white text on a black background will provide a suitable contrast. Other colour combinations
can be adopted at your discretion but you should avoid combinations which might cause
difficulties for the visually impaired.
If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are
illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable
during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge.

Umkomaas

All nicely worded to enable the IPC to gain ATA status from the DVLA. Since then, the CoP has been ignored by IPC PPCs - with impunity.

In parallel to this, and to convince the DVLA that the IPC was an organisation that could be trusted, they even had the IAS allow appeals in significantly greater numbers than they have ever repeated since the award of ATA status.

Nygie

And it continues lol. SRA and CSA both a none starter.
Wrote back to them again.
Has there even been a case where you invite them to take it to court within a "timescale" or cease and disist.
I guess they would have to agree to that which I guess they will never do!