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

Coupon-mad

LoveNorfolk wrote: »

Also does the NTK have to arrive in working days as I could add that on, it arrived on 65th day including weekends.

For a better grip on this issue, you'd do well to read schedule 4 of the POFA which is really simply set out in bullet points. It's linked in the NEWBIES sticky FAQs thread. The time limit is the NTK must have reached you by day 57 (all days count) and a late one isn't 'void' but it does mean they can't hold the keeper liable.

Also what if I added this to it:
I feel it embarrassing to have to point out to you as a legal company that the notice to keeper issued by Excel cannot hold a registered keeper as liable as you well know.

You could change that to:

A purported 'legal firm' acting for a parking company should be embarrassed that it takes an unrepresented consumer such as myself, to point out to you that...' (then explain the late NTK and the fact Excel do not use the required wording for keeper liability). Tell them not to insult you with the pretence that the case of Elliot v Loake* can possibly apply to a case relating to an alleged contract where there is NO evidence of the driver's identity (completely unlike that criminal case where there was ample evidence).

And you can finally, threaten to report them to the CSA (see their debt collector code) and SRA (Solicitors' Regulatory Authority) for this misleading letter.




*search the forum, or Google, for it - because Excel do like to 'rely' on it

LoveNorfolk

Thank you Coupon-mad, I have just recounted the days from the date of the PCN to me receiving a NTK and I miscounted and it was actually 57 days.

LoveNorfolk

I can see writing about POFA in that thread, it says link underneath but there doesn't seem to be a link, have googled it, is it set out same as .gov website, as that seems quite garbled. I am trying to work my way through info on it from parking pranster.

On the reverse of the ticket that was purchased by the driver it states:
Failure to comply will result in the contravening vehicle being liable for one or more of the following enforcement procedures:-
1) The issue of a parking charge notice.
2) The affixing of a wheel clamp and/or towed away and impounded, In such circumstances a charge will be levied prior to its release.

Can I use point 2 against them as towing became illegal in 2012? I know it's not related to my problem, but their information is misleading.

Quentin

LoveNorfolk wrote: »

I can see writing about POFA in that thread, it says link underneath .

No.


It says this regarding POFA information: "linked below"


The link is high-lighted in blue ink further down in #1 in "that" thread!

LoveNorfolk

Letter so far....still not sure about the CSA, can't seem to see anything other than financial conduct authority and solicitors regulation authority.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Dear BW Legal,

The debt is denied. The amount charged bears no relation to the parking fee which was paid in full by the driver.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In addition to this, the signs displayed in the car park by Excel were approximately 8 feet off the ground with extremely small writing not allowing the terms and conditions to be read fully by the driver. Additionally , the alleged contravention states that the vehicle was parked in a restricted area. There was no indication within the signage what area, if any, was restricted, and there were no markings within the car park to allow the driver to differentiate between an area where parking may or not be allowed. I have photographic evidence from the driver that clearly shows no markings around the vehicle on the ground, nor any signs to bring this to their attention.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I bring your attention to the fact that to enforce a parking ticket Excel are required to show that a contract exists between the driver and themselves. Parking contracts like any other must be made in compliance with general law. As such, consumer protection law would be relevant in this case to establish whether the signs displayed in the car park were sufficient or not, (I have photographic evidence provided by the driver that shows they were not, too high and the writing too small to be able to sufficiently be read), and that the terms and conditions were fair. If it can be shown that a contractual term is unfair (there is no mention on the signage of where/what a restricted area is), it then follows that the term cannot be relied upon to enforce a parking charge.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Your debt collection costs of £54 are not appropriate and the amount is also excessive. I refer you to ParkingEye v Somerfield where debt collection costs of £60 were found to probably be a penalty by HHJ Heggarty. No more may be recovered than is specified in the Notice to Keeper (less any payments made towards the unpaid Parking Charges), all correspondence relating to Excel fail to do this, by attempting to add on charges. The balance should not exceed the £100 as outlined in the notice to keeper.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By attempting to pass liability to the registered keeper, you must be aware that it does not create any new form of liability for parking charges or a route in which to claim parking charges which were not lawfully due in the first place. Which as mentioned above, Excel cannot claim for a contravention when there is no clear information available to the driver, not least due to the inadequate signage, as to which areas of the car park are restricted.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]A purported 'legal firm' acting for a parking company should be embarrassed that it takes an unrepresented consumer such as myself, to point out to you that Excel do not use the required wording that is required for keeper liability, not less that a notice to keeper must arrive within 56 days of the driver receiving a parking ticket, which this one did not, posted on the 23/4/13 (55 days after), and arriving 57 days after on 25/4/13.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Please do not think of replying with the pretence that the case of Elliot v Loake can possibly apply to a case relating to an alleged contract where there is NO evidence of the driver's identity. With the Elliot v Loake case there was ample evidence of who the driver was.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]And you can finally, threaten to report them to the CSA (see their debt collector code) and SRA (Solicitors' Regulatory Authority) for this misleading letter.

I trust this matter is now resolved and do not want to be contacted by yourselves or your client Excel again unless it is to serve County Court papers. If I am continued to be harassed, I shall report you to the CSA (see their debt collector code) and SRA (Solicitors' Regulatory Authority) for this misleading letter.


Yours faithfully[/FONT]

LoveNorfolk

Also, I have tried to read through POFA, I am not sure what they word wrong on the NTK, unless I am missing something, it seems to be all there?

I read that it has to be by 56 days, this is 57 from what was written on it. Why would they leave it so late to post?!

Thanks

LoveNorfolk

Quentin wrote: »

No.


It says this regarding POFA information: "linked below"


The link is high-lighted in blue ink further down in #1 in "that" thread!

Thank you, I managed to find it via google anyway, I'm confused though as to what required wording Excel don't put on the NTK, I've tried going down checking it off, but can't see anything I'm missing yet.

Herzlos

LoveNorfolk wrote: »

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]And you can finally, threaten to report them to the CSA (see their debt collector code) and SRA (Solicitors' Regulatory Authority) for this misleading letter.
[/FONT]

Don't include that text in the letter; change it to the actual threat.

Coupon-mad

This poster did a search of 'BW Legal £54' and found a shorter letter by hoohoo on pepipoo (he also posts here on MSE):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70838480#Comment_70838480

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=104441

And you can finally, threaten to report them to the CSA (see their debt collector code) and SRA (Solicitors' Regulatory Authority) for this misleading letter.

Wow, as Herzlos says, don't copy stuff verbatim that was written to 'you' as advice here. Clearly you have to reword that.

'CSA debt collector code of practice' is easily Googled.

HTH

LoveNorfolk

Herzlos wrote: »

Don't include that text in the letter; change it to the actual threat.

Thanks, I know, just trying to clarify who those people are and if they are linked so I have right ones to mention.