BW Legal rejected my complaint, demanding payment. Full letter inside. Please help.

shuandrew

Hello everyone,

Like many here, I received demands for payment from BW Legal for an unpaid parking ticket from 2012. I did pay for a ticket, but it blew away as I was closing the car door and so the ticket inspector saw that as complete non-payment.

I wrote to BW Legal using a template letter found on the forum here, and also sent a complaint to the CSA - also using a template letter.

I have just received the following letter (typed in full below), rejecting my complaint, with reasons why - citing legal cases and all sorts.

Can anyone advise how I should respond? I am not in the best of health, so this all worries me and I do not want to have to go to court.

Thank you for your help.

*******************

Our Client: Excel Parking Services
Account Number: XXXXXXXXX
Balance Due: £154.00

We write with reference to the above matter and your recent complaint received from the Credit Service Association ("CSA") on July 28 2016.

We are sorry that you have felt it necessary to express dissatisfaction with the manner in which this matter has been dealt with by BW Legal. We endeavor at all times to ensure that Our Client's customers are dealt with in a fair and professional manner.

We have investigated your complaint and respond fully to the matter below.

Your Complaint

1. That under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"), no keeper liability can be formed and we should no longer pursue you regarding this matter;
2. That you believe we are misleading the legal process in our correspondence to you;
3. That our legal charges are not fair;
4. That you believe we are using bullying tactics to pursue the above matter.

Our Response

1. On June 22 2016, we were instructed by Our Client to recover the Balance owed by you to Our Client, due to a Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") contravention.

a. The PCN as previously advised, occurred on July 13, 2012, where the car bearing registration XXXXXXX ("the Vehicle") was parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket or permit.

b. You were provided 28 days from the date of the PCN to dispute the matter or raise any concerns through an independent appeal service, but failed to do so.

c. Please find enclosed your PCN and photographic evidence.

d. As there has been an offence committed, we shall not remove your details as you are liable for the Outstanding Balance Due. For the avoidance of doubt, your points on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 are noted, however in any event Our Client will be relying on the case of Elliot v Loake [1982] where it was held that there is a presumption that the registered keeper of the Vehicle is the driver and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this presumption is reasonable.

2. Please note that our initial correspondence was sent to you on July 7 2016 advising that as you were provided with 28 days from the PCN to dispute the matter or raise any concerns through an independent appeal service and have failed to do this, that we require payment of the outstanding balance within 16 days f the date of the correspondence. We further advised you that if you failed to provide payment or provide reasons for not we would then seek further instruction from our client to commence legal proceedings against you.

a. Our comments in respect of any proceedings are made purely for informational purposes, where we have allowed you to take stock of the prospective outcomes in the event of non-payment. We therefore do not agree that we have acted unreasonably.

b. We further do not agree that we have not been clear in our communications to you; you have responded to our communications and highlighted your dissatisfactions in response.

3. We note your contention that the costs and interest are unlawful. In respect of the PCN charge, we direct you to the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited vs Beavis [2015], where the supreme court held that the PCN charges serve a legitimate commercial interest and are therefore deemed lawful, in respect of the PCN charge sum, the relevant car parking Codes of Practice also give guidance that the PCN charge of £100.00 is a reasonable sum to charge.

a. Furthermore, our legal fees of £54.00 are reasonable for a professional law firm dealing with this matter, and payment of such fees was detailed in the signage at the location of the PCN contravention.

4. We reject any suggestions that any unfair methods or bullying tactics have been used to try to recover this debt; the reasons are stated above.

Considering all the circumstances of this matter, we have not upheld your complaint for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, we see no reason why you should withhold payment from our Client.

If you are unable to pay the Balance in full, our Client is still amenable to resolving this matter on a commercial footing and is willing to come to an arrangement whereby you repay the debt at an affordable rate. For ease of reference, attached are the ways in which you are able to discharge your indebtedness to our Client.

We trust this clarifies all points raised within your complaint. If we do not hear from you again within the next 14 days with regards this matter, we will assume that you are happy with our resolution and we will update our records accordingly.

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours faithfully,

BW Legal.

Redx

you use a GAN template letter to respond and to keep responding , effectively a "debt is denied , FRO" letter

there are plenty on here and even more over on pepipoo forums

ensure you address any points they have made with rebuttals of your own (by GAN)

so the templates vary according to the topics and the rebuutals refute their claims

its letter tennis (or email tennis) , you keep replying ad infinitum if necessary , to create a paper trail for court

these are the letter before court action, not one , could be a dozen

ultimately you are hoping an MCOL wont arrive, although I believe that it will for the vast majority

ignoring will lead to an MCOL, which may happen anyway

what you want is not relevant, they are in control and if they wish to issue an MCOL , they will (they have 6 years to do so)

so find a GAN template that rebuts what they have said, plus complain to the CSA and to the SRA, there are letters of complaint you can find for those people too , the more complaints the better

Grimble

I would add please send me by reply the Police statements and forensic evidence that you intend to use as in the EvL case failure to do so will result in a complaint to the SRA.

fisherjim

I would keep being awkward as possible just to give them as much grief and costs as you can and follow the great advice above.

shuandrew

Thank you everyone. I will draft a letter and post it here first, before sending, if that's okay.

MothballsWallet

OP - stick with the advice from Redx to use the letter written by Gan.

I wonder if at some point you can refer BW to the reply given in Arkell versus Pressdram?

shuandrew

Do you have a link to one of Gan's templates, please? I have searched on pepipoo, but only see posts where he/she helps others with advice.

The_Deep

That reply is a tissue of lies. You must complain in the strongest of terms to the SRA.

You were provided 28 days from the date of the PCN to dispute the matter or raise any concerns through an independent appeal service, but failed to do so.

Lie, there was no appeal service available when this invoice was issued.

As there has been an offence committed,

Another lie, it is a disputed invoice

Our Client will be relying on the case of Elliot v Loake [1982] where it was held that there is a presumption that the registered keeper of the Vehicle is the driver

Not very smart of them. Elliott v Loake was a hit and run case in a criminal court which turned on forensic evidence

we direct you to the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited vs Beavis [2015], where the supreme court held that the PCN charges serve a legitimate commercial interest

Oh dear, wasn't that about a small matter of £52,000 a year?

Furthermore, our legal fees of £54.00 are reasonable for a professional law firm dealing with this matter

No, they are not allowed in SCC

Here is a copy of a letter I have just posted to the SRA, I urge all members to send them something similar.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5509488a

MothballsWallet

The_Deep wrote: »

That reply is a tissue of lies. You must complain in the strongest of terms to the SRA.


You were provided 28 days from the date of the PCN to dispute the matter or raise any concerns through an independent appeal service, but failed to do so.

Lie, there was no appeal available before 1 October 2012


As there has been an offence committed,


Another lie


Our Client will be relying on the case of Elliot v Loake [1982] where it was held that there is a presumption that the registered keeper of the Vehicle is the driver


Elliott v Loake was a hit and run case which turned on forensic evidence


we direct you to the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited vs Beavis [2015], where the supreme court held that the PCN charges serve a legitimate commercial interest


Oh dear, wasn't that about a small matter of £52,000 a year?


Furthermore, our legal fees of £54.00 are reasonable for a professional law firm dealing with this matter

No, they are not allowed in SCC


Here is a copy of a letter I have just posted to the SRA, I urge all members to send them something similar.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5509488a

I need to go off topic a moment to ask The Deep something: that last bit about "sending something similar" to the SRA include those of us who don't have a PPC issue and, if so, who do we put as the "usual suspects"?

The_Deep

shuandrew wrote: »

Do you have a link to one of Gan's templates, please? I have searched on pepipoo, but only see posts where he/she helps others with advice.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71202709#Comment_71202709

I am not sure if there is a ye plate, but read post number 7

HO87

Sorry TD but no Gan post on the link you have provided.