Excel Birmingham and a case of poor lighting

torontoboy45

So the rejection letter arrives, as expected.

It seems somebody called ' J George' actually read the appeal, judging by the letter's contents.

After waffling on about the motorists' responsibility to ensure they check the expiry time on the p and d ticket ( while staying silent on the operator's responsibility to ensure their ticket machines are in good working order ) she moves to one of the (template) appeal points:

'Whilst you have made a request under Principle 6 of the DPA 1998, unfortunately this does not mean you can simply demand us to cease processing your information and you fail to explain or meet the requirement s for a Section 10 Notice within your letter and I will detail below the reasons why'.

Then some stuff about the ICO website.

Then 'Your request in principle can only be dealt with if the processing of information 'causes unwarranted damage or distress' and you must outline this in your request which you have failed to do'.

Then an invite to appeal to the IAS, which - I have to agree - is just a grubby little rubber-stamping operation.

Finally: 'please note that further costs may be incurred should it be necessary for us to subsequently recover any outstanding charge using debt recovery and/or court action'. 'Debt recovery' costs sounds a bit like double delivery.

To anyone's knowledge: is this the first time Excel have gone out of their way to refute a point in coupon-mad's excellent appeal template?

I can easily see how these shysters extract cash from the uninformed or vulnerable, with this shouty, bullying tone.

But not the RK, who will remain with this until the day in court.

Coupon-mad

is this the first time Excel have gone out of their way to refute a point in coupon-mad's excellent appeal template?

First time I have seen that.

PPCs are clearly unhappy at all the potential DPA breach cases coming their way, and planned counter-claims should they try a claim.

torontoboy45

So the DCA threats have arrived.

The first artificially inflated the 'charge' to £160, the second tells of a generous client who is willing 'to accept' £136.

I bet he is.

I made it clear in my appeal that I wouldn't be responding to a DCA but I'm really itching to fire off an email making it clear that I've received quality advice and my defence will be full-on if this gets to court. Is this advisable?

I'm genuinely surprised - and disgusted - at the 'demanding money with menaces' MO of this dirty little outfit. I've spent a few hrs studying up on Excel and their debt collection/ legal goons. I'm not easily shocked but reading of their many tactics/tricks left me light-headed. I'm even more 'game on' than when the NTK arrived.

torontoboy45

Bumping this up - not because of any major developments, it's just that I have a quick question.

3 demands received from an outfit calling itself 'Debt Recovery Plus Ltd'.

Today a demand from new kid on the block 'Zenith Collections' offering to settle for £79.99 (down from £136).

So, Excel has shared the RK's details with two (ostensibly) different third parties. By doing this has Excel acted correctly (in a legal sense)?


Thanks for looking.

DoaM

Zenith = DRP from another desk in the same office.

All covered in the NEWBIES thread.

torontoboy45

D'oh.

There it is, right there in post no.4 in the sticky.

Bear with me, if you will. I'm still on a learning curve.

torontoboy45

The usual flurry of BWL threats and bluster. All ignored, as per the advice on here.

Today, another from the clowns, which confirms the drivers' file is 'placed on hold whilst we query this matter with our client'.

Shame. We were hoping for an LBCCC. I'm more than up for arguing this one as lay rep in front of a judge. Maybe I still will.

But does anyone else think they're bottling out by referring back to the client?

beamerguy

torontoboy45 wrote: »

The usual flurry of BWL threats and bluster. All ignored, as per the advice on here.

Today, another from the clowns, which confirms the drivers' file is 'placed on hold whilst we query this matter with our client'.

Shame. We were hoping for an LBCCC. I'm more than up for arguing this one as lay rep in front of a judge. Maybe I still will.

But does anyone else think they're bottling out by referring back to the client?

You must have realised by now that they are idiots.
So much proof on record

Who knows what their wisdom will bring forth ?
One wrong move and they will be whooped in court again

Play their game. BWLegal must really get out of the beds
of scammers

torontoboy45

So, after 18 months and playing some ping pong emailing with the clowns at bwlegal, drawing their attention to their deficiencies and the dishonourable mention they received courtesy of the HoC last Feb, the Letter of Claim has arrived.

Would someon be good enough to look over the following?

Dear Sirs

Thank you for your letter dated X.

in previous correspondence with your Client I asked to be provided with details of the basis on which the money was being claimed, including all photographs of the vehicle at the relevant time. None was forthcoming.

You have now sent a Letter of Claim. However, your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and, again, fails to provide the photographic evidence I requested as long ago as Jan 2018. It doesn't even say what the cause of action is, nor does it contain any mention of what evidence your Client intends to rely on or enclose copies of such evidence.

The action on the part of your Client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre Action Conduct, with which you - as solicitors - must surely be familiar with ( and with which your Client - a serial litigator of small claims- must also be familiar). As you (and your Client) must know the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of claim. Its express purpose is to assist all parties in understanding the claim and their respective position in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings and using up valuable court time.

Nobody, including your Client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. Your Client cannot simply refuse to provide the relevant information until this matter reaches court.

I require your Client to comply with its obligations by sending the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action.

2. Whether they are pursuin me as Driver or Keeper.

3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4, POFA 2012.

4. What the details of the claim are ( where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed ).

5. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim.

6. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver.

7. A plan clearly showing where any signage was displayed.

8. Details of any signs displayed ( size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed.

9. If they have added anything to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(c).

If your Client does not provide me with this information I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham and Green (2012), EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Ltd v The Lark West Club Ltd (Part 20), Buxton Associates (2003), EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd and Peter Dann Ltd (2007) EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of proceedings pursuant paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16. I will draw the court's attention to the fact that I have expressly requested this information from your Client as early as Jan 2017.

Until your Client complies with its obligations and provides this information I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and consider my position in relation to it. Should your Client prematurely attempt any proceedings I will seek an immediate stay, pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and order that this information is provided.

Your faithfully,

Torontoboy45.

torontoboy45

P.S. That date in para 3 should read 'Jan 2017'.