Letter of claim - BW legal

beamerguy

Umkomaas wrote: »

I find it an interjection that adds a bit of information not previously seen on a thread:

http://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/Excel-Parking/reviews

It's certainly no worse than many of your gratuitous rants about 'scammers', 'cowboys', and 'scum' on any thread you can get your hands on.

When living in a glass house, it's really best not to throw stones!:)

And I will continue to call them 'scammers', 'cowboys', and 'scum' because that is what they are.
Again with you ...... conversation terminated

Umkomaas

beamerguy wrote: »

again with you ...... Conversation terminated

tfft .

Turbocat1

Hi so I have drafted a response letter. Please can somebody take a look and provide any feedback

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter dated 18th July 2016. I am writing to you as the registered keeper of vehicle registration number xxxx xxx to dispute the alleged debt and court proceedings your recent letter has referenced and advice that any consequential legal proceedings that are brought regarding this issue will be vigorously defended.

Firstly I feel it important I to point out to you that despite you statement that,

"In allowing you the opportunity to make representations/pay the balance before proceedings being issued, our client has complied with the guidelines under the independent parking committee code of practice and its obligations under the civil procedure rules."

is in fact woefully inaccurate, and in fact you are quite clearly in breach of the requirements set out in the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct (in particular can I bring to your attention Section 3 Paragraph 6.2 and Annex A Paragraph 2.

Your alleged "legal" costs of £54 in particular are in no way appropriate and the amount quoted is grossly excessive, misleading and unnecessary.

As you are pursuing the 'Keeper' of the vehicle (myself) for breach of contract, then I feel it necessary to point out that your £54 "legal" costs do not form part of the contract that has allegedly been breached, therefore when you respond to this letter with the appropriate required information as detailed in the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, can you please ensure that the aforementioned "legal" costs are removed.

With regards to my dispute (as keeper) I would like to point out the following:

1. Signage - The signage in the car park states the following as the terms and conditions that apply to the implied parking 'contract' - "Zone A Valid Permit Holders Only in Designated Bays No Parking for Commercial Vehicles". There are no other terms and conditions stated on the signage. Yet the contravention description on both letters received from both you and your client state it as, "Not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space".

This alleged contravention is not displayed as a term or condition of the parking 'contract' on the signage, and therefore without such a term or condition being visible on the signage then no breach of contract can have occurred. In order for there to have been a breach of contract it would have been necessary for "Parking correctly within the markings of a bay or space" to be stipulated as part of the contract but it is not and as such form no part of the parking 'contract'.

2. The alleged offence has in no way caused any form of financial or commercial damage to either your client or the landowner. As the car park in question is a residential carpark for permit holders only, no commercial loss has been suffered by said contravention.

The alleged contravention also in no way has caused obstruction to any other resident/visitor wishing to use the adjacent space. I have photographic evidence that supports this and shows your clients van parked comfortably within the adjacent space regardless of my vehicles positioning. Ultimately the fact that the vehicle was parked partially across the marked lines had no detrimental affect on any other user of the carpark.

Might I finally point out that by attempting to pass liability to the registered keeper (me), you must first be able to establish that a breach of contract has arisen with the driver. Based on the information above there has clearly been no beach of contract and therefore your pursuit against me as the keeper is invalid.

In my opinion there is a much better alternative to legal proceedings, namely to use the services of an independent ADR suited to parking charges. Along with this suggestion might I stress that I would not include the use of the IAS appeal service (as stated in your letter) as they lack the required transparency and independence to come to a just and satisfactory outcome. I'm sure between both parties we are able to find an alternative and suitable ADR service that we could use to come to a satisfactory resolution. I am happy to discuss options regarding ADR with you.

Please ensure that someone from your firm reads and responds to this letter, and should you wish to continue your pursuit of settlement via the courts then please forward on to me ad amended and compliant letter of claim containing all the required information as outlined in the Practice Direction of Pre-Action conduct.

Please note that should your follow up letter fail to comply with the practice direction then you will leave me with no alternative other than to refer this to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the principles contained within the SRA handbook.

I hope and trust that such action will not be necessary and that we can resolve this with the use of an independent ADR service.

Yours faithfully,

Xxxxx

Turbocat1

Any help looking over the above drafted response would be greatly appreciated

Turbocat1

Anybody able to take a cursory glance over my proposed letter? Any feedback would be massively appreciated. I need to post it first thing tomorrow morning.

Umkomaas

Personally, I wouldn't be rehearsing any of the arguments about signage or damages as BWL are unlikely to be in any position to cancel on their basis, and you can bet your bottom dollar that Excel won't. These are arguments for court - if it ever gets there.

I'd be fighting fire with fire by saying you need this settled, so please issue court proceedings within 14 days so that a Judge can resolve the matter. If they don't issue proceedings within that timescale, you will consider the matter closed.

You can't go on wondering what might next drop through your letterbox - it's put up or shut up time for BWL/Excel.

Have you checked out similar threads on PePiPoo where regular contributor Gan has penned a response for use in these BWL cases? There's dozens of threads over there, so have a look if you've not already done so.

There is no 'miracle letter' to get rid of this - other than, in my view, one that gives them a deadline to issue proceedings, or, to FRO. See what that brings.

Turbocat1

Ok thanks umkomaas. I'll drop those parts.

wooder

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'd be fighting fire with fire by saying you need this settled, so please issue court proceedings within 14 days so that a Judge can resolve the matter. If they don't issue proceedings within that timescale, you will consider the matter closed.

You can't go on wondering what might next drop through your letterbox - it's put up or shut up time for BWL/Excel.

just browsing these threads - does this have any legal standing ? I mean, if you give them a deadline and they fail to issue does that mean they've legally run out of time to pursue this further or can they simply ignore your deadline and just carry on sending the threat-o-grams ?

thanks

The_Slithy_Tove

wooder wrote: »

just browsing these threads - does this have any legal standing ? I mean, if you give them a deadline and they fail to issue does that mean they've legally run out of time to pursue this further or can they simply ignore your deadline and just carry on sending the threat-o-grams ?

No.

However, if they do subsequently issue proceedings some length of time down the road, it's just another piece of evidence to put before the judge to demonstrate their unreasonable behaviour.