BW Legal - Excel - new letter from 2012!

PaulJM

Hello all,

I've had bit of a look down the forums, and notice a few people have had the same issue, but most of those conversations look quite mature, so I wonder if you could point me in the right direction.

I've bene sent a letter from BW Legal - from correspondence I had about a car registered with me Excel about parking on 17th August 2012!

The advice at the time was to ignore it - they said the car was parked in a disabled space, and to this day I'm told it wasn't. What is the score now? Do I still ignore? I know things have moved on, but I want to do the right thing - I know people have lost these appeals now, after going to court - back when this was done, the advice was that the parking companies would never win!

The_Slithy_Tove

You check those "mature" threads on Excel/BWLegal, and start at the beginning of them. Look only at reasonably recent ones - there are quite enough on the last month or so. Use the information gleaned there to see what kind of response to make. That depends in part on exactly what it is you have received from BWL. Remember that your parking event predates the Protection of Freedoms Act, so the keeper cannot be held liable, only the driver. Neither Excel not BWL know who the driver was, and I am sure you won't remember that far back either ;-).

Umkomaas

If you've never indicated who the driver was in any correspondence with Excel, they are trying to now claim keeper liability. Keeper liability was introduced in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which became law in October 2012 - so they cannot invoke keeper liability against you. If you've never previously indicated who the driver was, don't start now in any sloppy drafting of any response.

Have a look over on PePiPoo as well as MSE - these Excel/VCS/BWL cases are coming to us by the shed load each week for the past couple of months.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=60

Do some further reading, there will be plenty in exactly the same position as you. It's impossible for the half-dozen regular contributors to type out the same reams of advice for every case. It will take you far less time to find and read similar cases than for us to write up each and every angle you need to work on now.

By all means come back with your proposed strategy as we can offer much more meaningful and targeted advice once we know you are starting to get an understanding of the issues and some idea of how you are going to tackle them.

PaulJM

Umkomaas wrote: »

If you've never indicated who the driver was in any correspondence with Excel, they are trying to now claim keeper liability. Keeper liability was introduced in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which became law in October 2012 - so they cannot invoke keeper liability against you. If you've never previously indicated who the driver was, don't start now in any sloppy drafting of any response.

Have a look over on PePiPoo as well as MSE - these Excel/VCS/BWL cases are coming to us by the shed load each week for the past couple of months.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=60

Do some further reading, there will be plenty in exactly the same position as you. It's impossible for the half-dozen regular contributors to type out the same reams of advice for every case. It will take you far less time to find and read similar cases than for us to write up each and every angle you need to work on now.

By all means come back with your proposed strategy as we can offer much more meaningful and targeted advice once we know you are starting to get an understanding of the issues and some idea of how you are going to tackle them.

Thanks guys - I understand you can't reply to everything.
I'll go and read. Indeed I've never even responded to them with anything, let alone whoever the user of the car was.

I was slightly panicked - I knew things had moved on, but I didn't know to what extent.

PaulJM

I was thinking this as a response?

Dear Sir,

Ref: XXXX

Thank you for your letter dated 9th August 2016.

I deny any debt to Excel Parking Services.

I was not the driver and, as the alleged parking event was before The Protection of Freedoms Act, your client has no right to pursue me for payment.
Given the length of time since the alleged contravention, it is not possible to identify the driver

The matter is therefore closed and the Data Protection Act requires that your client deletes my records

As an aside, the Civil Procedure Rules are quite clear that your £54 charge for "Legal Services" cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

Yours Faithfully

---

My questions about this are -

1) I've never been sent anything to indicate that they know who the driver was - is it likely they have this detail?
2) I've noticed they bring up a "Elliott v Loake [1982]" which looks like it's got nothing to do with it - shall I refute that one now, or wait?
3) Does this look ok?
4) Shall I email it or write a letter or does it matter?

Umkomaas

1) No
2) Get your tackle in first on that (have another look on PePiPoo - there's been a form of words used there to cover this in a response to BWL)
3) Looks OK, no driver identification - but there are some 'ready made' ones over on PePiPoo - see if you can find one as it will have been fine-tuned over the past few weeks by a number of experienced contributors there
4) You could send it both ways (covers both corners for you then) - make sure if you're sending it by post, use first class with free certificate of posting (not Signed For/Recorded)

Make sure you safely keep copies of all correspondence from here on in!

The_Slithy_Tove

PaulJM wrote: »

I was not the driver

Only say that if it's true. There are plenty of ways of telling them that you are responding as the keeper, and it's the driver they must be communicating with, without making specific statements that you may need to justify in a court.

The_Deep

Copy the correspondence to the SRA


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


make sure the solicitors know you are doing so.

PaulJM

Ok (and thanks very very much, I realise you're typing the same thing to each person - I've had a few hours on this now, but want to get it right!)- what do you think of this one -




Dear Sir/Madam





Ref ****


Thank you for your letter dated 9th August 2016.


I deny any debt to Excel Parking Services.


As this occurrence was 4 years ago, I have no recollection of who the driver was and, as the alleged parking event was before The Protection of Freedoms Act, your client has no right to pursue me for payment.


Given the length of time since the alleged contravention, it is not possible to identify the driver. Even if I could be sure, the driver would have an expectation of privacy and I would not identify him/her unless protected by a court order.


I note reference by yourselves in previous correspondences with registered keepers to the case of Elliott v Loake [1982]. In that case there was substantial evidence to suggest the registered keeper was the driver of the car.


The matter is therefore closed and the Data Protection Act requires that your client deletes my records


As an aside, the Civil Procedure Rules are quite clear that your £54 charge for "Legal Services" cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court. Furthermore, you suggest that you would successfully obtain a “CCJ” against me, which would have a detrimental effect on my future creditworthiness and employability. Due to this, I copy my correspondence to the Solicitors Regulation Authority via their website, and to the Legal Ombudsman, via email.


Many thanks..

Umkomaas

your client has no right to pursue me (the Registered Keeper) for payment.

unless protected by a court order.

Not sure what this means?

But it looks OK - unless anyone else spots anything glaringly obvious in the next (say) 24 hours, send it off. But beware, this won't stop anyone in their tracks, you are preparing the ground for any possible legal action.

It's early days in the Excel/VCS/BWL axis, but anecdotal evidence suggests they are more likely to pursue those who do not respond rather than those who bite back. Bullies don't like tackling those who fight.

Well done on doing much of this on your own - you'll be an expert in dealing with this crock soon.

PaulJM

Hello all,

I've been getting advise on Pepipoo also but it's gone a bit quiet and I think I need to act!

Really need some help on this now - I've spent a good hour reading articles then finding a court has superseded them!

To recap -

What happened?
BW LEGAL chasing for a £100 for PCN charge, plus £54 legal charges to the Registered keeper (me) for allegedly being parked in a disabled bay on 17th August 2012.

BW Legal sent a the RK a letter on 9th Aug 2016 to ask for payment! (RK ignored the ones sent at the time as per recommendation here and elsewhere)

What has been done?

RK has sent a letter back to dispute that he was the driver at the time to BW Legal. RK has also advised them that because this occurred before the protection of Freedoms act, they cannot pursue or insist that the drivers details are given.

BW legal have replied to say that they've been instructed to pursue the RK.

It was 4 years ago, and the RK has genuinely no recollection of who the driver was!

I now need some help with the following -

- Shall I respond to BW legal's recent letter now?
- Is there a synopsis of the relevant bits of the Freedoms act before the recent one?
- What date was the recent act?
- Can they say that what came before is irrelevant, they now follow the new act, which is why they're chasing the RK now?
- How best should I think about defending this, should it go to court?
- What is likely to be the next step?
- What is the Harry Greenslade quote (I've read a lot of stuff from him and nothing looks like I could use it!

I was all fired up for this, but I've read quotes here that say "court is not for the faint hearted!" I don't want to go into that unprepared, especially if there is a way of negotiating on this one - but there is so much info that sometimes looks a bit contradictory!