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

The_Deep

Well if they do, you are Nip and tucked.

DoaM

Commercial interest is because Beavis was at a retail park, where turnover of customers could be seen as a commercial necessity. At a residential location no such interest exists.

Similarly PE paid a licence to the retail park owners (£1000 per week) for the right to provide parking enforcement and issue parking charges. At a residential location that doesn't happen.

The_Deep

At a residential location that doesn't happen.


Indeed. Now stop being a wimp and start kicking @rse.

LoveNorfolk

It was a car park that belonged to an old factory and the ticket was for all day (it's a 24 hour car park) ending at 02:09, so they don't have a high turn over of customers. They have not provided any evidence of proof of a restricted area in the car park and that is where my dispute lies. They have just given photos of the car. As far as I am aware there is nothing on any of the signs apart from saying you'll get a PCN if you park in one!

LoveNorfolk

This is what I've drafted so far:

Dear Sir or Madam,


I have been in correspondence with BW Legal who are regulated by yourselves. I have complained to the Credit Service Association (CSA) who also regulate them for the breaches of their code of practice. I am not satisfied with the response received from BW Legal of this complaint and now find myself having to complain to yourselves in relation to their last letter (a copy of which is enclosed) in which they attempt to relate this case, to one won by a different private parking company which is not the same as this one.


They attempt to use the Parking Eye V Beavis case in which Mr Beavis disputed the parking charge notice from Parking Eye. The case in question has no bearing on the Beavis case for the following reasons: The Beavis case took place in a free car park at a retail park and the time limit was overstayed by Mr Beavis, in this case it took place within a 24 hour car park away from businesses on the outskirts of a town where a ticket was purchased for the whole day and no time limit was overstayed, there is not a high turn over of customers due to being able to park for 13 hours maximum at a time, as such there is no commercial interest as there is in the Beavis case; the car park that Mr Beavis parked in was well sign posted where as in this case the signs are approximately eight feet off the ground, with poorly contrasting colours making them hard to read and of small font size.


I feel strongly that BW Legal are using none related cases in an attempt to frighten and threaten those they contact and being a legal firm their solicitors should be aware of cases that cannot be claimed to be the same.

Umkomaas

1. You need to break up that wall of text commenting on the Beavis case.

2. You should copy that link to the Supreme Court tweet.

3. You need to research the Beavis Court of Appeal outcome (the 2nd stage court case before the Supreme Court) where they ruled that had the case been a P&D car park, then the penalty rule would have applied (those with a more detailed knowledge on this case than me may chip in here).

time limit was overstayed by Mr Beavis, | in this case it took place within a 24 hour car park

You need to set this from | as a new paragraph.

pappa_golf

LoveNorfolk wrote: »

This is what I've drafted so far:

Dear Sir or Madam,


I have been in correspondence with BW Legal who are regulated by yourselves. I have complained to the Credit Service Association (CSA) who also regulate them for the breaches of their code of practice. I am not satisfied with the response received from BW Legal of this complaint and now find myself having to complain to yourselves in relation to their last letter (a copy of which is enclosed) in which they attempt to relate this case, to one won by a different private parking company which is not the same as this one.


They attempt to use the Parking Eye V Beavis case in which Mr Beavis disputed the parking charge notice from Parking Eye. The case in question has no bearing on the Beavis case for the following reasons: The Beavis case took place in a free car park at a retail park and the time limit was overstayed by Mr Beavis, in this case it took place within a 24 hour car park away from businesses on the outskirts of a town where a ticket was purchased for the whole day and no time limit was overstayed, there is not a high turn over of customers due to being able to park for 13 hours maximum at a time, as such there is no commercial interest as there is in the Beavis case; the car park that Mr Beavis parked in was well sign posted where as in this case the signs are approximately eight feet off the ground, with poorly contrasting colours making them hard to read and of small font size.


I feel strongly that BW Legal are using none related cases in an attempt to frighten and threaten those they contact and being a legal firm their solicitors should be aware of cases that cannot be claimed to be the same.

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"

LoveNorfolk

Thanks guys, I'm not happy with Excel or BW and have no intentions of paying them anything.

Wow Pappa Golf that is a humdinger! Thank you, I'll certainly have a bash at modifying that and getting it sent off, I shall obviously send a copy to BW and tell them I'm not happy with their conclusion to the complaint and as such have escalated it to the SRA.

Thanks!

beamerguy

And that pappa golf is the ultimate letter to the SRA about BW Legal,

Your friend ? is a smart cookie
One would imagine that if the SRA ignore this, they will self desruct their credibility

beamerguy

LoveNorfolk wrote: »

Thanks guys, I'm not happy with Excel or BW and have no intentions of paying them anything.

Wow Pappa Golf that is a humdinger! Thank you, I'll certainly have a bash at modifying that and getting it sent off, I shall obviously send a copy to BW and tell them I'm not happy with their conclusion to the complaint and as such have escalated it to the SRA.

Thanks!

Why send a copy to BWLegal, let them wake up and smell the coffee