Excel PCN from 2013, new letter from BW Legal- help!

Coupon-mad

LoveNorfolk wrote: »

Speaking to a colleague yesterday (I've found talking makes me a feel a bit better about it as people think these companies are s.c.u.m), found out they had a similar predicament to this and other old cases, but they paid it!! I was trying to get them to understand what they could have done, and they asked me this, which I couldn't answer them and thought you guys might be able to help with?

They were the driver, so by mentioning NTK not being POFA compliant (which is what I was trying to explain), if it got to court they couldn't say they weren't driving, but could have said they couldn't remember with it being so long ago, but then that's technically lying. But that's even if it got to that stage! Any ideas, cos I'm stumped!

Well, they don't even have to say that. They could have said this (quite a lot of detail here but just so you know!):

There is no evidence as to who was driving the car on this occasion some four years ago. The burden rests with the claimant to evidence their case and to demonstrate the liability of a defendant. It is a fact that I am the registered keeper, and to hold me liable, a parking operator must comply with the POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

It is situations like this one - a baseless claim brought by a notorious ex-clamper - that led to such detailed Bill going through Parliament in 2012. During the reading of the POFA Bill, Hansard shows that Parliament considered the lobbying of ex-clamping firms, angered by the clamping ban, but resoundingly discounted imposing any obligation whatsoever, upon a keeper to name a driver to any private firm.

In the 2015 POPLA Annual report, the Lead Adjudicator (a barrister and expert on parking law) Henry Greenslade took time to reiterate and place his opinion on record that there is 'no lawful presumption' that a keeper was the driver and he added 'and no parking operator should suggest otherwise'.

LoveNorfolk

Cheers! That also helps me understand it better! It's such a minefield, there is no wonder people just roll over and pay. I've never since the pcn was received, ever parked in an excel car park again and never will!

LoveNorfolk

All quiet on the western front, nothing from BW Legal (not that I want it unless they're just going to get on with court so they can stop wasting me time), nothing from the CSA yet which I take to be good news, they must be on to something with it being over a month now. Reply from the SRA in receipt of complaint, lets hope they're like !!!!!! with all the complaints going in about BW Legal!! :rotfl:

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thanks, LoveNorfolk for placing your letter from SRA in here. I was directed here by Coupon-mad, who as well know is sharp on all of this.

For the last week or so I have been compiling my own complaint to SRA. Seeing that in their response to you (from "You have reported...") they seem to have accepted your complaint as worthy of investigation, I will be using similar complaint points (mine is re Gladstones).

One of the hardest things we complainants and charge dismissers have to do is distilling our complaints down to the salient points. I'm not sure if you pasted your complaint to SRA in this thread but at the moment mine looks like War & Peace, lengthwise anyway! I need to shorten this, I'm sure. Did you put into the SRA complaint all the details of what happened re your actual charge? Or did you just mention the points of complaint?

Are you planning to work out YOUR expenses for the time it has taken you so far? Then, if and when the case gets to court, you can charge the legal representatives of the particular parking cowboys. Coupon-mad tells me the going rate is £19 per hour.

Anyway, good luck with all of this. Although it takes hours/days/weeks reading up and working it all out it is probably worth the effort. I hope!

LoveNorfolk

You're welcome, I'm putting things on as they happen so people can see what to expect or what they could send. I thought I had put the SRA complaint on here, it was basically just points, my CSA complaint wad more war and peace!

Still nothing from either place, I complained to the CSA back in July!!

I'm thinking about charging for time, not sure on setting it out yet, to be fair, time I've spent on it would amount to more than can be claimed! I've kept all postage receipts so would definitely claim for that and my time. I'm hoping really that it doesn't go to court, as it's a farce anyway, but if it does do, so be it and if I win I will claiming as they think it acceptable!

LoveNorfolk

pappa_golf wrote: »

adapt AND MODIFY TO YOUR CASE:


I am complaining about BW Legal’s assertions in their 'Letter of Claim' ('Final Notice') dated xx/xx/2016 (copy attached) with reference xxxxxxx 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 xx August 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.


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.




suggested by "a friend"

This is what I adapted Kind of irritated

Maundrelle

really learning a lot from this thread so keep us updated on your responses that you're sending out!
my position is similar ( received Final Notice from BW legal ) so Im just putting together my response letter to BW legal and will also put a complaint to the SRA as many have advised too, thanks to all who are assisting

MirandaW

Hi all!

I think I have a very similar issue. I recently received letters from BW about a PCN issued in 2014. I can't remember parking in this area, I am not even certain I was driving (espically after 2 years), therefore I have ignored the letters.

However today I received a court claim form. This I obviously can't ignore but I am unsure what my rights are :-/
The fine demand is now £244! But I don't know whether to pay it to make it go away or is there a way to defend this?

I am very worried about this!

Many thanks in advance

Miranda

Redx

this one hasnt got to a court claim yet, yours has , so please start your own thread using the red NEW THREAD BUTTON

thank you

The_Deep

Miranda, it is a huge scam. Please start yuour own thread and we will tell you what to do.