BW Legal Letter Tennis- next step ?

Fruitcake

McOfson wrote: »

So can they pursue /take to court the registered keeper..? (even though I'm not anymore..) Is that the current legal stance?

They can issue court papers to anyone they like. Your job if that happened would be to prove they had no right to do so because they have not shown that the keeper is liable, or have not followed the POFA to transfer liability to the keeper.

McOfson

"Keeper liability refers to the lawful right of the car park operator to hold the registered keeper liable for a parking charge where the driver that incurred the notice cannot be identified. "

I've just seen this definition on the internet.. but in my letter recently from BW Legal it says:
"We can confirm that our client does not intend to rely upon the POFA 2012."

I'm confused.. so if they aren't relying on POFA and they do not know the driver, how can they pursue me as registered keeper?

further ....
"However, the right to make the keeper liable only applies if certain strict conditions, as defined under the Act, are met.The following are the Conditions that must all be met for Keeper Liability to Apply:A notice to keeper must be served not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked"

My NTK was dated/sent after the 14 days..

so I'm not sure what the stance is??

Redx

you are over thinking this

its a game of bluff and innuendo

it is THEIR JOB to prove their case, and they will use weasel words to do so

as you correctly mention, your stance is "prove it" , so a part of your defence in court is the statement you made above

a judge will decide if they have a valid case on any legal points raised , but at this stage it wont stop them lying , inferring untruths or trying to scare you with weasel words

you only have to look at parking pranksters EXCEL - PEEL CENTRE blog the other day to see this in action

as for the keeper issue, it matters about who was keeper ON THE DAY , not who the keeper is now, nor if the car was sold or scrapped later on

the current keeper details are not relevant and are sidetracking you , stick to the facts like they sometimes do, they issued it to the keeper after the contravention as detailed on the DVLA records.

if they can PROVE that this person is liable, they will do so , but most of the laws or rules or judgements they may or may not try to use may well be their undoing

they have 6 years to try to take the driver to court (if they know who it was) , even if that person was never the keeper or is no longer the keeper

they dont know who that is so are trying to invoke liability onto the keeper registered at that time with the DVLA

assuming no admissions have been made in the meantime

ps:- your case is not much different to this one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5538952

except in that case NO NTK WAS DELIVERED

in your case it was late and also failed POFA2012 as well


what do you do next ?

you keep playing letter or email tennis , refuting any points raised , ad infinitum , until they either PUT UP or SHUT UP

until the 6 year statute kicks in , when you then tell them the claim is statute barred

The_Slithy_Tove

Two quotes from your BWL letters:

• "We can confirm that our client does not intend to rely upon the POFA 2012."
• "In absence of driver details we are instructed to pursue you as registered keeper."

That'a going to be interesting (for them) when you put those two contradictory pieces of evidence before a judge.

fil_cad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Two quotes from your BWL letters:

• "We can confirm that our client does not intend to rely upon the POFA 2012."
• "In absence of driver details we are instructed to pursue you as registered keeper."

That'a going to be interesting (for them) when you put those two contradictory pieces of evidence before a judge.

:rotfl::rotfl:

Coupon-mad

McOfson wrote: »

sigh. it's all so legally detailed now and convoluted isn't it... and it seems that every case is slightly different depending on little different situations and parking company and with the IAS, POPLA etc etc... my brain is frying. I can see why thousands just pay up despite whatever the initial situation was. I'm not even the registered keeper anymore. double sigh But I know that so many others are going through exactly the same right now!

Yes but in fact, all BW Legal cases are the same! Send anything you find on here or pepipoo forum on any BW Legal threads - and if you get a claim they are woeful and fairly easily defended with our help.

I'm confused.

So are they but they don't care, they know a percentage of people pay. DON'T! The stance is, the keeper cannot be held liable.

beamerguy

coupon-mad

love that

"I'm confused"

SO ARE THEY :rotfl:

I think we are all realising that BWLegal to two parts short of something :eek:

McOfson

Hello all again
More letter tennis
I sent them this:
....
I remind you that your client VCS, sent a notice to keeper which was non compliant with POFA 2012 .
VCS did not send the required paperwork to the registered keeper within the correct timescale, and 'no keeper liability' can be established if the ‘Notice to Keeper’ arrives late.
As such, no keeper liability can be formed if you were unsuccessful in identifying the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. I remind you that there is no presumption in law relating to private land parking, that a keeper was the driver, unless your client has evidence of that person.
Your client has no right to pursue me and the legal action you threaten cannot succeed. As such you must now pursue the driver. I am under no obligation to name the driver and you have no legal basis to make an assumption that as the registered keeper at the time, I was the driver.
As I dispute this charge and consider this matter now closed, I politely request that you do not contact me further. Should further correspondence or telecommunications be forthcoming I will be left with no choice to report BW Legal to the SRA (Solicitors' Regulatory Authority) and the CSA (Credit Services Association) for the misleading information contained within this letter.

They sent back:
.....
As stated before our client does not intend to rely on POFA.
We note that you question the identity of the driver. This would imply that you were not the driver at the time. Therefore we would be grateful if you could provide the details within 7 days.
In the absence of driver details our client reasonably presumes you were the driver, we refer to Elliot v loake. We shallthen take our clients instructions in regards to issuing court proceedings for the balance.
Please note our intention is not to mislead you. the information we have provided is not misleading.
We look forward to hearing from you within 7 days.
...........
so guys, what is the next step with regards to this? is this a court intention notice, or just more letter tennis?
BW

pappa_golf

In the absence of driver details our client reasonably presumes you were the driver, we refer to Elliot v loake.


Please note our intention is not to mislead you. the information we have provided is not misleading.



where is the roll on floor laughing smiley ?

beamerguy

McOfson wrote: »

They sent back:
.....
As stated before our client does not intend to rely on POFA.
We note that you question the identity of the driver. This would imply that you were not the driver at the time. Therefore we would be grateful if you could provide the details within 7 days.
In the absence of driver details our client reasonably presumes you were the driver, we refer to Elliot v loake. We shallthen take our clients instructions in regards to issuing court proceedings for the balance.
Please note our intention is not to mislead you. the information we have provided is not misleading.
We look forward to hearing from you within 7 days.

Good luck to VCS THEN,
There is no implication and you are not obliged to say who the driver is/was and to keep on referring to Elliot v Loake which has already been trashed.

BWLegal ... what part of Elliot v Loake which was a criminal case do you not understand.
OF COURSE BWLEGAL ARE MISLEADING YOU