BW legal Excel 2012

Bakewelltart

Really interesting reading on here and brings back memories from July 2012, when I was advised to ignore the threat o grams received. With the exception that now with BW it appears we have to respond in some way or another to speculative invoices that are over 4 years old...
So would a short reply to the first letter recieved from BW to the registered keeper, whom wasn't the driver might I add be sufficient? Coupon Mad I know you are a font of all knowledge on this, and any advise will be greatfully received.

"there is no keeper liability so please refer this back to your client as it is denied that any contract exists between you and them. There is no cause for action and any claim will be treated as vexatious and a full costs recovery order sought".

Any further correspondence will be treated as harassment

The_Deep

By acting for scamming PPCs BWL are going very much out on a limb. If their letter is in any way threatening, misleading, mentions £54, CCJs, or Beavis v PE, complain to the SRA in the strongest possible terms.

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor.page


Also, remove this as I am sure there is


it is denied that any contract exists between you and them.

Bakewelltart

So will this be ok then....


There is no keeper liability so please refer this back to your client. There is no cause for action and any claim will be treated as vexatious and a full costs recovery order sought".

Any further correspondence will be treated as harassment.


Also for interest does anyone know when BW started to process old invoices (tongue in cheek) and how far down the line and approx. how many letters again are we looking at?

I saw on other posts there are a few people saying about letters and county court.

The_Deep

Good, but no cigar? Have you seen any of Gan's letters on ppp, they really kick @rse.

Redx

this year , ie:- since Barry Beavis lost his case

the ideal letter to send is one composed by GAN over on pepipoo and has been posted on both sites many times , but is similar to yours above

BW legal maybe about 3 letters at most and then an MCOL in the post a few weeks later, currently they are ramping them up so increasing exponentially, both forums being awash with them over the last 3 months or so

Bakewelltart

Thanks Redx, I've looked for GAN but can't find. TBH I thought after 4 years this was well and truly put to bed.


So in effect the next lot of letters will be similar to the old Graham White/Roxborough ones increasing in cost until the MCOL appears.


Cant lose anything by sending the short reply!


Wouldn't mind pre POFA and registered keeper wasn't the driver!

Redx

member GAN is an admin on pepipoo and his letters have been used numerous times on both forums so if you cannot find the letters you havent done enough research on Excel , VCS and BW LEGAL

try the search words BW LEGAL £54 and read the threads

I think the costs stay around the £140 to £180 mark , but in recent months an MCOL has followed the BW LEGAL letters in many , many cases , so now they are turning up the heat post Beavis , especially with those fast approaching 6 years , hence if yours is 4 years or more its why you are being targetted , due to the Beavis failure

the old WHITE/ROXBURGHE were all smoke and mirrors and before Beavis , Beavis losing 3 times was the game changer so they are all jumping on the bandwagon now , Excel , VCS , UKPC , CEL , PE and many more

The_Deep

The problem for them, if they take to court, that many claims are poles apart from Beavis, many are IPC companies who do not offer a fair appeals service, and some of the solicitors charges are somewhat inflated.


Against a determined defence, I suspect that few will succeed.

The_Slithy_Tove

The_Deep wrote: »

The problem for them, if they take to court, that many claims are poles apart from Beavis, many are IPC companies who do not offer a fair appeals service, and some of the solicitors charges are somewhat inflated.

Unfortunately it's only a problem for them in the cases where a decent defence is put up. I fear that what we see on these forums is only the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the water is the 9/10 of
- People who get all scared and pay up
- People who ignore (or never receive the clam due to having moved) and end up with a default judgement, a CCJ and all the hassle that ensues from that
- People who attempt to defend without help, submit a rubbish defence and lose
Remember it's a numbers game for them. And until the courts or the politicians (remember that policy statement that was due out in April) do something about it, it will continue.

The_Deep

I agree, but we cannot save every one from themselves. People will still shop at Brighthouse, take out payday loans at thousands percent interest, and sell their scrap for a third of its value, let us concentrate on the savvy souls who seek our help.

arabesque_101

Bakewelltart wrote: »

Wouldn't mind pre POFA and registered keeper wasn't the driver!

Yes I would add that (if you can't find GAN's reply).