BW Legal and Excel; £54 'legal charge' justifiable ?

beamerguy

We do not know how many letters BWLegal have sent out
We must assume it is thousands.

Are they actually going to fill up the court system with the same story ?

Or is it the bluff of the decade to extort money ?

It is now a waiting game to see what they actually do

Already BWLegal have failed the test of competence and as the Prankster has demonstrated they are highly incompetent

yotmon

I think Bluff is their middle name ! I had a third letter from them this week, the only difference from the other two was that they confirmed that the letters were NOT 'Letters before action' and merely pre legal letters. Still asking for money - bless them. Oh, and the paper seemed better quality, maybe somebody has paid them !

Coupon-mad

yotmon wrote: »

I think Bluff is their middle name ! I had a third letter from them this week, the only difference from the other two was that they confirmed that the letters were NOT 'Letters before action' and merely pre legal letters. Still asking for money - bless them. Oh, and the paper seemed better quality, maybe somebody has paid them !

yotmon, have you added the weight of your own complaints to the CSA and SRA yet? The more the better.

henrik777

Justifiable, probably. Will a court award it, they shouldn't but might if it isn't questioned.

JJ7516

Thank you.

Does POFA 2012 have any bearing on my case given that I admit and had admitted in my original response to Excel that I was the driver? I cannot and would not argue that I am merely the registered keeper.

Won't the County Court consider the relevant caselaw as it is at the time of any hearing, irrespective of the age of the alleged contravention?

JJ7516

yotmon, I can see that I may appear to be crazy at first blush, but you cannot deny that the majority of cases posted on this and other sites involve either registered keepers who can rely on the POFA 2012 argument or are drivers with a different argument. As loathe as I am to capitulate, if my only argument is that the charge is unreasonable and the law is against me, I would lose if they do issue proceedings and would face the charge plus whatever costs the court deemed reasonable against me, so would end up paying more, which would be foolish. If there is any mileage in arguing that the charge is still unreasonable, even after Beavis, as the car park did not offer 2 hours free parking, as in that case and the charge is even higher than in that case, I would more than happily take this all the way. I have no confidence, given all that I have read, that this is the case. The difficulty I have is that the many helpful letters and arguments on these forums do not relate to my defence.

JJ7516

Thank you all. I shall not give in and shall send my letter off today and hope for the best.

Umkomaas

PoFA won't apply to a case prior to October 2012. However, if the PPC was pursuing you as the keeper for a pre Oct 2012 case, you would argue that keeper liability did not apply at that time. Unfortunately, confirming the driver's identity negates any of this.

The court wouldn't need to consider PoFA as the driver has been identified. But you are racing too far ahead. You need to get letters flowing between you and BWL to get this timed-out, then no court is going to get an opportunity to offer any form of judgment.

What was the exact date you sent the cheque for the car park charge?

The_Deep

I am surprised that, after all the advice to play letter ping pong you are still wavering towards paying these scammers. You are, imo, unlikely to win at court, becauses, from what I have read, it is unlikely that BW can get their act together in the very limited time left to them.

AFAIIA, they have yet to bite the bullet and go to court, and I would very much doubt that they would want start with a six year old case.

I am sure that you can "remember" why you were delayed, a sink hole opened in front of you, you were struck by lighting, tripped on the curb, judges do allow for mitigation, especially if there was a medical emergency. You can beat this, and, with a bir of luck, turn a modest profit.

JJ7516

Coupon-m: I fear bw has learned from other responses: they have reworded the part re CCJ so that it is far less misleading and they are careful not to suggest the £54 are their fees, but are "Our Client's initial legal costs, which are detailed in the Car Park terms and conditions".

Umkomaas: That was my understanding re POFA. This is why I thought about paying at least something, as much as I feel it is wrong. I cannot tell you the exact date I sent the cheque - it was within days of 25/10/10. They returned it. I had thought this had died a death long ago, which is a point I shall use if this goes to court.

The Deep: I am sending a letter. The reason I wavered is that you gave (although it may be a typo?): "you are, imo, unlikely to win at court" but I see you also think they're unlikely to get their act together in time. I am fighting it still!

This is my letter:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Account Number xxxxxxx

I have received your letters dated xxxx and xxxx.

As you will know, I deny any debt to your client. Accordingly, I reject the offer made in your last letter.

Notwithstanding that, I note that your letter demands £54 for legal fees. I refer you to the Civil Procedure Rules generally and in particular Rule 27.14. Such fees are not recoverable. They are not supported by reference to any documentation. Should your client seek to rely on these, copies of documentation seeking to justify them would be required.

In addition to other issues arising in relation to this matter, should your client decide to issue proceedings in the County Court, I shall also argue that there has been unreasonable behaviour on the part of your client, given the inexplicable delay.

My position is final.


Yours faithfully,