BW Legal Letter of Claim

BCDNM

Good evening folks, sorry but I have been asked to post a question regarding a proposed response to a Letter of Claim from BW Legal reference Excel Parking dating to over a year ago.

Family member followed the old advice of ignoring the PCN and has subsequently not heard anything until now. No other letter from BW until this. Cannot recall any letters from excel. Has none in her possession.

Firstly, the letter does not contain an address where this is said to have happened, only a partial postcode which covers a substantial area. She believes she knows where it may have been and advised that the signs are tiny, small writing and often pitch black at night time.

Anyway the details:
It requests balance to be paid in less than 2 weeks "to prevent legal action from being taken". £124 demanded, £70 parking charge and £54 initial legal fees. Adding "in the event CC proceedings are issued we will be seeking:
Principal debt and legal fees: 124.00
Estimated interest: 5.85
Estimated Court fees: 25.00
Estimated Solicitors Costs: 25.00
Estimated Total: £204.85"

As I have discovered, the usual attention drawn to Beavis but this adds "this eliminates the defence you may have.....should the matter go to court".

Then comes the so widely commented on misrepresentation of a CCJ, before the list of enforcement actions they "reserve the right to take" if you fail comply with the CCJ.

Then the tone changes from if, may, could etc.

Adding, "In allowing you the opportunity to make representations and/or pay the balance before proceedings being issues, our client has complied with the guidelines under the Independent Parking Committee Code of Practice and its obligations under the CPR. All previous correspondence in this matter will be brought to the attention of the court should this point be raised."

Final comments, "to avoid proceedings being commenced and the above additional fees" please pay by x date. "In the event we do not receive payment we place you on notice that we WILL commence legal proceedings for the recovery of the balance without further notice".

Any advice would be most welcomed please. Thanks in advance.

BCDNM

Having seen the advice not to ignore a Letter of Claim, from personal letters and looking around trying to find appropriate matches and information, I have written the following proposed response which I hope you can assist with, critique and advise the best course of action.


Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter dated x,



I deny any debt to your client and will vigorously defend any such claim. Importantly, this is the first notification I have received of any such matter so this is subsequently my earliest opportunity to respond.

I should not have to point out that your letter is incredibly threatening and ambiguous. As a result, this fails on numerous levels to meet the requirements of the Practice Direction for Pre-action Conduct and Protocols (Annex A). For instance, you have not even provided a location, merely a partial postcode.

Your letter fails to offer the following information as stipulated by MOJ guidance and the aforementioned Practice Direction:
-The basis on which the claim is being made,
-A clear summary of the facts
-A clear explanation of how your figure has been calculated
-What documents and evidence you intend to rely upon
-No suggestion of ADR and,
-No reference to allowing me a response, just demanding payment
-Equally, your client has also failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act as well as its ISO 9001 quality accreditation.

I will await an appropriate letter before claim.

If you would send me copies of the original parking notice and subsequent documents, I will give them my consideration. Can I here take the opportunity to remind you that any notice to keeper cannot be used to hold a registered keeper liable as you seem to imply.!

I also note from your letter your comments that firstly, if you obtain a CCJ, this will affect my employability and creditworthiness, and second you suggest a rebuttal of a defence before it has even been raised.

These scare tactics are a misrepresentation of the legal process as firstly, there is a 14 day period to comply (or make payment plans) with such an order and it will not affect that which you mention, and finally, to intimidate an unrepresented legal party by threatening they have no defence is shameful. I trust you are aware of the SRA Code of Conduct and Indicative Behaviour 11.7.

I should at this point refer to your £54 legal costs, which even if they have been incurred, you should be fully aware that they cannot be recovered in the small claims court. I refer you to the CPR 27.14.

In light of the above, you shall be reported to the SRA for such conduct as I am appalled by such ill-evidenced threats. To say that your conduct has brought the profession into disrepute is an understatement.

In addition, you will be reported to the Credit Services Association given your apparent debt collection request and its lack of adherence to the CSA Code of Practice, namely to comply with UK legislation. Finally, this matter shall be brought to the attention of the landowner where I intend, to expose and report your conduct without compliance to pre-action protocol and nature of this letter.

Your demand for payment (without evidence) concludes with a further threat that legal proceedings will be commenced “without further notice” if the balance is not paid. This presents a clear rebuttal of ADR methods/options as commended by the BPA Code of Practice.

May I take this opportunity to remind you of the principle in Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust regarding the ability of a party to recover its costs if the other has behaved unreasonably and ignored the availability of ADR. As reinforced by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and the overriding objective.!!

In addition and in any alternative, the fee suddenly suggested is severely disproportionate and excessive. I refer you to Parking Eye v Somerfield where debt collection costs of £60 were held to be an unfair penalty.!Your out of the blue demand is over double that.

Using the figure you have demanded (£124), at this location, the rate payable is £1.30 per 1 hour. Therefore by my calculations your charge is equivalent to an overstay/contravention of over 95 hours which is severely unreasonable.

If this claim is therefore not expedited and negated, due to all of the above, I shall also progress a case to the British Parking Association to report your client’s failure to offer ANY correspondence in this matter. To attempt to take such threatening advantage of a layman in this way is a disgrace. It is my understanding the Excel Parking have been investigated by the BBC Watchdog for this behaviour so I will be contacting them and providing a full update.

Given that discussed, until such time that you respond to my queries, your threatening demands however, that I will make any payment to your firm let alone by the date provided is unreasonable. In the event of any legal action I shall compile a detailed portfolio of the above matters and draw to the courts attention your clients primary failure to present me with a valid notice to keeper.

If no reply is provided within 7 days or if your response fails to clearly answer my questions and concerns, I will consider this matter closed and will not enter into any further correspondence with you.

Yours Faithfully

Umkomaas

Excel joined the IPC on 01/01/15. If the parking event took place on or after that date, any reference to the BPA is irrelevant and should be removed.

Even if before that date, I doubt the BPA would now have any interest in this whatsoever.

The 'threat' to complain to the landholder appears a bit empty if the respondent is not absolutely certain as to where this parking event actually took place.

Otherwise, in a skim-read, looks OK. No idea what the outcome will be - all the BW Legal stuff is only a few weeks old and no pattern of outcomes has yet emerged.

Make sure that if you are threatening any other action (SRA and CSA) you actually carry this out, otherwise you will be treated as a bullsh*tter and might make you more vulnerable to being targeted further.

BCDNM

I will recommend the changes you suggest thanks.

The_Deep

Complain to the SRA anyway re unprofessional conduct, due diligence, conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, misleading information, (Beavis), threatening language, it costs them money to deal with them.

https://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page