DRP Notice of intended court action

Coupon-mad

Looby78 wrote: »

Hi again. Last week I received a letter from BW Legal asking for the amount of £100PCN plus initial legal costs of £60. It states they require payment in full within 16 days of the letter and if we fail to do so or provide reasons for non payment in that time frame they will see their clients instructions to commence legal proceeding against us in the form of a county court claim form in the county court.

I take it this is the LBA people speak of and I need to seek out the response to this? Thank for the replies so far guys, it's appreciated.

Yes, search this forum and pepipoo forum for 'BW Legal LBC'. Whatever you send will be ignored by BW Legal but remember you are writing a response that in due course, will be in the documents shown to a Judge. This will be sorted one way or the other in 2017 and cases ARE winnable in many situations (even if lost you can object to the £60 vague add-on and there are no huge costs that can be incurred).

Have you already admitted to being the driver? Just so we know, when it comes to a defence.

Looby78

Yes the car is registered in my partners name. I replied early on with a scanned image of the parking ticket from the day admitting I was driving on the day in question.

I've been checking responses on here and pepipoo. Many seem to be refuting on grounds of signage, questioning if contracts from the claimant/landowner have been exchanged, presuming the keeper was the driver on the day etc. Obviously I'm guessing I can't now use the driver/keeper refute, but would I include others when I've retained the ticket from the day and as said previously they've now changed to sticky tickets?

It seems from what I've been reading it's a case of questioning everything in the letter (and a bit more) and their rights to pursue it.

Appreciate the help btw. I know you guys deal with this time after time on here but it's a bit daunting for a newbie with little or no experience of all this.

Redx

Looby78 wrote: »

It seems from what I've been reading it's a case of questioning everything in the letter (and a bit more) and their rights to pursue it.

Appreciate the help btw. I know you guys deal with this time after time on here but it's a bit daunting for a newbie with little or no experience of all this.

correct on both counts , but we will help those new to this topic who will sit down and do the research once pointed in the right direction

we were all NEWBIES to this once, but the repition creates gurus from NEWBIES , bear in mind we see nothing new on here , iuts the same topics rehashed time and time again

and yes its a confusing sc@m industry , which is why we put our free time in helping newbies fight back

Fixtrace6

re #8
If you have been sent a 'Letter of Claim' from BW legal then it is not a Letter before Action. It is something they call pre action communication. I have seen a letter stating that. I can forward the exact quote if you need it. But do challenge them about it.
It's just another little something people need to know.
Keep replying to them

Looby78

Yeah I think this is just a letter before claim, rather than a letter before action. A bit stuck with what to do with it at this stage. Is a short reply like the one below any good to start with?

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Your reference ******

I deny any debt to Vehicle Control Services Ltd and refer you to my initial response to your client regarding the ticket I purchased on the day of the alleged offence and retain to this day.

Regarding your intention to claim £60 for legal costs, I refer you to CPR 27.14.

If your client intends court proceedings, please provide a properly formatted Letter Before Claim that fully complies with the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-action conduct and Protocols.
I will then be in a position to provide a more detailed response.

Yours Faithfully

Looby78

Would it also pay to question the £100 as an unreasonable amount since their loss was precisely £0?

pappa_golf

Looby78 wrote: »

Would it also pay to question the £100 as an unreasonable amount since their loss was precisely £0?

but , they have spent £2.50 with the DVLA , and had to go online and buy "scary" red ink cartridges

and you have made them annoyed now

Coupon-mad

Looby78 wrote: »

Would it also pay to question the £100 as an unreasonable amount since their loss was precisely £0?

No, do not try that at all. That argument went out with the Beavis case in 2015. Nonono.

Looby78

Hi again.

I sent a reply as in post number 16 on 8th January.I got a reply from BW Legal dated 16th January stating they hadn't had a reply. However today I've had another letter from BW in response to the letter I sent. The letter gores as follows:

We refer to the above matter and your recent correspondence.

Our Client is seeking recovery of the PCN recovery costs n the sum of £54. We refer you to the bottom of the Tariff Board, which states, '[the Claimant} will be entitled to take legal proceeding to recover any outstnading charges, including interest and any addition costs incurred.'

We confirm Our Client elects to rely on the court of appeal ruling in Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798, 'that does not alter the fact that it remains a contractual entitlement which the court will enforce subject to its equitable power to disallow unreasonable expenses. There is nothing in the rule making powers in respect of the CPR which enable the rules to exclude or override that contractual entitlement and I therefore agree with Arden LJ that the judge had jurisdiction to assess the costs free from any restraints imposed by CPR 27.14.

beamerguy

Looby78 wrote: »

Hi again.

I sent a reply as in post number 16 on 8th January.I got a reply from BW Legal dated 16th January stating they hadn't had a reply. However today I've had another letter from BW in response to the letter I sent. The letter gores as follows:

"We confirm Our Client elects to rely on the court of appeal ruling in Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798"

Chaplair brought County Court proceedings against its tenant Mrs Kumari in order to recover unpaid rent and service charges.
http://www.jbleitch.co.uk/news/chaplair-limited-v-kumari-2015

BWLegal are acting for VCS so is VCS .... THE LANDLORD ?
OR SIMPLE AGENTS