Response to letter from BW Legal

SevenCities

Background: A family member parked in a car park managed by Excel in Q3 2012. They received a PCN because it was alleged that they briefly left the retail/leisure park on foot and that the conditions of free parking required the driver to remain on the premises. Before discovering this forum and others, they attempted the Excel appeal process via email, thereby identifying the driver. Of course it was refused. After doing some online research, the advice given was to ignore all communications from Excel and their representatives and that this would eventually go away. Over the next couple of years, we received the expected string of increasingly threatening letters from Excel and others claiming to be their legal representatives. Then, as of a couple of years ago, it all went quiet. The driver has now received a letter (actually two letters in the same envelope: one from Excel and one from BW Legal) threatening legal proceedings if a balance of more than £150 is not paid within a matter of days. It states "If you fail to make payment or provide reasons for non payment within the specified timeframe, we will seek Our Client's instructions to commence legal proceedings against you in the form of a County Court Claim Form in the County Court."

Here is a draft response that I would appreciate feedback on. Also, is it advisable to send with the Post Office Signed For service or Proof of Posting service? Thank you.

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Your reference XXXXXXXXXXX

I deny any debt to Excel Parking Services Ltd. My reasons for this include:

• The vehicle was not “parked in a restricted area of the car park” as mentioned in your letter.
• As photographic evidence clearly shows, the signage in the car park was highly inconsistent and ambiguous with very different requirements stated on different signs and no demarcation of the leisure park boundary.

I note several breaches of the Solicitor's Code of Conduct Chapter 11 regarding your attempt to take advantage of a third party's lack of legal knowledge. I refer in particular to your claim for £54 legal costs. Even if they have been incurred, you are fully aware that they cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court. I also note your misrepresentation of the consequences of a judgement.

In the event of your threatened legal action, I will draw the court's attention to your client's absurd delay since the date of the alleged contravention. I consider myself fortunate to have received your letter at the original address and not to have exposed myself to the risk of a default judgement if you did not receive a reply.

As I received letters from both you and your client in the same envelope, I hold you responsible for informing your client of my reply.

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

Umkomaas

A 'put up or shut up' letter seems to be a reasonable approach. A 'leaving the site' case is a real uphill struggle for them, especially after the Ibbotson case where the PPC and their lawyer were ravaged by the Judge - the sol even threatened with imprisonment.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

Oh, did I mention that the PPC involved (VCS) is Excel's sister company? How remiss of me! :rotfl:

Before rushing off your letter, have a look on PePiPoo (there's dozens of Excel/VCS/BWL cases there) and look for regular contributor Gan's short, sharp and to the point written retort to BWL.

Whatever you send off, finish with a final sentence to the effect that you will be relying on the persuasive VCS-v-Ibbotson case should they be foolish enough to try a court case. It would be the first 'leaving the site' case in over 4 years since Ibbotson.

SevenCities

Wasn't Ibbotson successfully defended though on the basis that VCS couldn't demonstrate that it was acting as Wickes' agent in claiming damages. I know the judge had other criticisms of VCS, but wasn't that the key thing? Post Beavis, does Ibbotson still work? Thanks!

Umkomaas

SevenCities wrote: »

Wasn't Ibbotson successfully defended though on the basis that VCS couldn't demonstrate that it was acting as Wickes' agent in claiming damages. I know the judge had other criticisms of VCS, but wasn't that the key thing? Post Beavis, does Ibbotson still work? Thanks!

It hasn't ever been tested in the context of Beavis - but I think that would be more of a worry for any PPC, let alone Simon Renshaw Smith (MD of Excel and VCS).

There's plenty in Ibbotson to get your teeth into. Certainly enough to pray it in aid in any retort to BWL. Let them try to pursue on the basis of it being irrelevant!

SevenCities

Great advice, thank you. (by the way, I did use some of Gan's model letters in composing the above - you probably recognise some of his turns of phrase).

SevenCities

A "letter of claim" has been received from BWL. I'll post its content later. In the meantime a quick question:

I was reviewing LazyDaisy's excellent pinned post on LBAs and noted that the Pre-Action Protocol appears to have been amended. Specifically, the detail in the old Annexes on LBAs has been moved to a specific protocol on Judicial Reviews (which I take it don't apply to parking claims). How does this change affect the recommended way to respond?

Thanks in advance for the help.

Redx

cant answer that as lazydaisy hasnt posted for some time or changed those protocols even though they changed 18 months ago

what I can say is that member G@N over on pepipoo has posted lots of FRO letters to go back to BW LEGAL , short and to the point, so go there and have a read

also read LOVENORFOLK`s thread on here as that contains various letters of complaint etc too

if you read enough BW LEGAL threads, you will find exactly what you need with the "debt denied" letters