Another BW Legal / JLA post...

Benjizac

Apologies first of all for adding another BW Legal post - I have done a fair bit of reading around, and feel I should respond to their latest letter - however there are some subtle differences with my case that don't quite crop up on the other posts I have read, both on here and on PePiPoo.

The original PCN dates back to 2013 at JLA, and I had some excellent help on this forum at the time, and as I hadn't heard anything since December 2013, thought that was the end of the matter. (For some context, here's a copy of the draft letter from the original post which is now closed - sorry I can't post a link to it)

...the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply and you are therefore not permitted to pursue the Registered Keeper for any spurious Parking Charge. You cannot claim in your letters that 'registered keeper liability' applies when clearly it does not. I will be writing a formal letter of complaint to the British Parking Association and the DVLA to inform them of your practices, which breach the BPA Code of Practice. I do not expect to hear from VCS again on this matter. As registered keeper, I am not the party you can lawfully try to pursue for this spurious charge and now I have made my position clear, you must refrain from sending any more harassment letters as I do not have any debt with VCS or Excel Parking. I am keeping a record of your harassment and will be charging for my time - at a small claims rate of £18 per hour - and expenses incurred by me in responding, if you or your agents contact me again.
Yours...

I had an initial typical Debt Collection Letter from BW on the 29th of June, which I ignored, and then received the Letter of Claim correspondence with references to ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] etc. Scary dary! After reading around, my feeling is that I should respond to this with the details of the original letter to VCS, adding in any information about PoFA not applying at John Lennon Airport, issues with signage (the current signs, which I understand have not received Planning Approval, were not in place in 2013, and it was double yellows not double red lines...) etc, anyway, I digress.

On closer inspection, I noticed that on both letters from BW Legal, they have addressed (or tried to address!) the letter to me (the registered keeper) referring to me by my first and middle names, omitting my surname. Therefore, is there a case to write back saying that no one by that name is or has been the registered keeper of said vehicle / lives at this address etc. Get them on a technicality!

Any advice is much appreciated, and in the meantime I will continue to trawl the BW Legal threads to compile a suitable response.

Many thanks as ever.

Coupon-mad

I would not merely say there is no-one of that name who has ever been a keeper of the car, but instead I would add a line about their lack of scrutiny, evidenced by a lack of details of the event, showing no cause of action and not even managing to get the name of the registered keeper right, proving this to be part of their very well known boiler-plate letter chain.

Benjizac

How about a simple,

Dear Sirs,

I recently received a letter from BW Legal addressed to a Mr .... Unfortunately there is no one by that name living at this address, therefore please could you update your records accordingly.

Your Faithfully,

The Occupier (or address it from my other half, although I wouldn't want to give them any more information than necessary).

If nothing else, it might work as a delaying tactic - or is this being a bit too underhand, as it is pretty clear it is addressed to me, despite the error?

Coupon-mad

I think they might just go ahead with a claim in that name, hoping to get a default CCJ which *would* appear to be yours to any credit ref agency. Hence, I would say more of the usual stuff to rebut the letter's drivel.

StaffsSW

Just bumping this up again, but has there been a sudden influx of BW Legal letters in relation to JLA?

Knowing that tickets issued at this location are effectively unenforceable through the courts, is this a another scare tactic to extort payment, or would they really chance their arm at a court case for a JLA no stopping ticket?

I've had a couple land today for tickets issued in 2016 that we have already replied in order to transfer liability.

System

has there been a sudden influx of BW Legal letters in relation to JLA?

There has been a sudden influx of BW Legal letters in relation to any ambulance sighting.

Expect at least a couple of roboclaims but you're big enough to counter claim.

StaffsSW

Just been reading up on the latest PP blog about BWL. I'm half tempted to ignore initially but meet them in court, but I must remain professional.

I've two Gladstone cases coming up, one of them is a peach of a blatant screw up, and I'm stunned it has got as far as being given a hearing date.

pappa_golf

ok , bide your time , this mob where part of the BPA when it happened , as you might know POPLa are putting all bylaw cases on hold until they can agree if bylaw land can be accepted as "sutable" land for a parking company to work from , "if" they decide that POPLa cannot hear bylaw cases , then no popla ,, no case. any parking operator MUST offer an appeals system.