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

The_Deep

Now amended.

The_Deep

The usual suspects are Wright Hassel, Miah, BW Law, Gladstones, and SCS


If a few of you name and shame them, the SRA may be spurred into taking action. At the moment they appear to be sitting on their hands.


Anyone who quotes Elliott v Loake should be struck off in my opinion.

shuandrew

BW Legal replied again, what to do now?

Thank you for your help everyone. I wrote a letter to BW Legal using the rebuttals given above: no appeals process at time, Elliot vs Loake, etc. And said not to contact me again. They have replied, and now I do not know how to refute their argument. Can anyone advise, please? Am I going to have to go to court?

Here is their full reply:

We write in reference to the above matter and your correspondence received September 2, 2016.

We note your contention regarding legal fees in the sum of £54.00 and your referral to CPR 27.14, the content of which we are well aware. In our letter dated August 23 2016, we addressed the terms and conditions ("The Terms") detailed within the car park at the time of the contravention which clearly state that any breach of the Terms will result in the driver being liable for the Parking Charge Notice and any costs incurred in debt recovery.

Our client have (sic) advised that the appeals process was available in-house at the time of the contravention, however there is no record of an appeal being received.

You have stated that no offence has been committed, it is a disputed invoice. We have previously set out our client's position, this is in respect of a Parking Charge Notice.

Your position regarding Elliot V Loake has been noted.

We can confirm that the £54.00 legal fees and the £100.00 PCN are set out in accordance with the Terms within the car park. Furthermore, Excel's authority was also detailed on the signage as displayed on the site in question.

We enclose for your reference photographs of the signage within the car park together with photographs of the vehicle at the time of the contravention clearly showing that no pay and display ticket was on display.

We trust this sets out our client's position,

Your faithfully,

BW Legal.

Their photographs of the car and signage are timestamped on different dates. Photos of the signage are time stamped 23/5/2012. Photos of my car on 13/7/2012. Not sure if this makes any difference?

Thank you again for your help.

Coupon-mad

Report them to the CSA and SRA as per LoveNorfolk's thread which shows strong examples of both. This delays and ties BW Legal up for weeks and may stop the case...who knows, many people are trying right now.

We can confirm that the £54.00 legal fees and the £100.00 PCN are set out in accordance with the Terms within the car park. Furthermore, Excel's authority was also detailed on the signage as displayed on the site in question.

Tell them that's not true, the signs do not have the figure of £54 on them so there can be no question, that a random extra sum cannot be added to the PCN sum or it is an attempt at double recovery by plucking a figure out of thin air which did not form part of the alleged contract.

Why not tell Theresa May and Sir Oliver Heald how intimidated and unnerved you feel re this baseless 'charge', as suggested in this threads below? Now is the time to complain to the top, seeing as the Government are looking to be waking up to this scam.

Ask them why it is fair that you have such a threat hanging over you, which could affect your credit through no fault of yours and based upon no 'credit' or CCA matter at all, not a real debt at all.

Make it clear this is about a false, baseless made-up charge by a notorious ex-clamping firm owned by 'Captain Clampit' (the earlier nickname of the now rich fat cat Simon Renshaw-Smith, of BPA board fame). Tell them that VCS and Excel are now on a feeding frenzy, with THOUSANDS of template claims, some even sent to people's old addresses after 4, 5 or even 6 years, courtesy of BW Legal's template and baseless 'roboclaims' (BW Legal being a firm known to currently be under some level of investigation by both the SRA and the CSA):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5524754

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71294781#Comment_71294781

Go for it. Strike now. I suggest letters sent snail mail so they pile up on someone's desk (whoever handles Mrs May's and Sir Oliver Heald's post), ready for when Parliament returns from recess/conferences.

DO NOT REPLY TO ANY PRIVATE MESSAGE HERE OFFERING TO 'HELP' IN ANY WAY.

We help on threads but the regulars here will not pm you secretly, so delete any private message if you get one from a poster with less than 1000 posts.

shuandrew

Thank you Coupon-mad,

I will send the letters as you have laid out above, and reply to BW Legal about the £54.00 charge.

Do I have any further points of argument in my next reply letter, or am I now just stalling them with any kind of detail I can muster?

Thanks again.

beamerguy

shuandrew wrote: »

Thank you Coupon-mad,

I will send the letters as you have laid out above, and reply to BW Legal about the £54.00 charge.

Do I have any further points of argument in my next reply letter, or am I now just stalling them with any kind of detail I can muster?

Thanks again.

Did you actually complain to the SRA ?

shuandrew

Hi beamerguy,

I have complained to the CSA previously, and have a letter ready to send today for the SRA, to be joined with one for Theresa May. Am just wondering if there is anything else I can say to BW Legal before I pop to the Post Office.

beamerguy

shuandrew wrote: »

Hi beamerguy,

I have complained to the CSA previously, and have a letter ready to send today for the SRA, to be joined with one for Theresa May. Am just wondering if there is anything else I can say to BW Legal before I pop to the Post Office.

No need to say any more to BWLegal keep them on tender hooks

philadygray

So pleased I have seen this thread, BW are taking me to the small claims court next week and their defence letter quote the case of Elliot v Loake [1982] and Beavis. The also say the registered keeper was the driver, not the case.

Any advise appreciated

Fruitcake

philadygray wrote: »

So pleased I have seen this thread, BW are taking me to the small claims court next week and their defence letter quote the case of Elliot v Loake [1982] and Beavis. The also say the registered keeper was the driver, not the case.

Any advise appreciated

Please read the Sticky thread for NEWBIES then start your own thread where you will get bespoke help for your situation.

You will need to provide a lot more information than the above though.