BW Legal Letter of Claim

geekfusion

Thanks - I will add a paragraph about the threatening tone of the CCJ section. I have also spoken to my boss at the time and they will provide a letter confirming that I was at work in West Wales at the time the ticket was issued. Would that be helpful and should I mention it now?

Coupon-mad

Yes, definitely be open with your evidence that you cannot be assumed to have been driving. You would be setting the scene to sue them for misuse of your data and/or setting the scene for beating them if they try a claim & it gets to a hearing.

If you assume that everything you and they write now, might be used at any hearing, make yourself very clearly to be the party with the moral and legal high ground and the person who openly provided evidence as to why you cannot be liable.

geekfusion

Thanks again for the advice.

At the bottom of the letter I received it says...

If Our Client successfully obtains a County Court Judgement against you(which is likely), then.....

Could I respond with something like this or is it too much...

[FONT=&quot]Additionally your false assumption that I am ‘likely’ to receive a CCJ against me is both threatening and breathtakingly arrogant. To presume to know the mind of a judge before a hearing has taken place is astonishing.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Yes, that is highly misleading. It is NOT 'likely' that they will get a CCJ (a CCJ arises only if a person loses then refuses to pay after 30 days from judgment). It not even likely that they would win at a hearing at all against a registered keeper.

That letter reads like one of their older ones which was torn apart in a SRA complaint shown in pbabb2012's thread on pepipoo forum and Love Norfolk's BW Legal thread, here. The wording sounds similar to those ones and well worth an SRA compaint, blow by blow, about each piece of misleading rubbish.

beamerguy

geekfusion wrote: »

Thanks again for the advice.

At the bottom of the letter I received it says...

If Our Client successfully obtains a County Court Judgement against you(which is likely), then.....

Could I respond with something like this or is it too much...

[FONT=&quot]Additionally your false assumption that I am ‘likely’ to receive a CCJ against me is both threatening and breathtakingly arrogant. To presume to know the mind of a judge before a hearing has taken place is astonishing.[/FONT]

The arrogance of this stupid company is unreal.

Get to grips with this bad outfit, an official complaint to the SRA about the false assumptions which is menacing.

Once you have complained to the SRA, tell this wild bunch BWLegal that you have complained to the SRA about their menacing letters

You now need to ask BWLegal what makes them think they will be successful ???

You treat idiots as idiots

I have said before that BWLegal are on some funny stuff.

I mean, in a prankster report where BWLegal failed.
The Prankster considers that if a company like BW Legal wish to file such a poorly constructed pack of lies as their witness statement, they deserve everything they get


It is not likely that BWLegal will win, the courts are fully aware
of them, to a point that judges are now smirking at them.
CASE DISMISSED

geekfusion

Thanks for the responses. Below is my finished letter - my only reservation is if I need to include the section about signage and Parkingeye vs Beavis - is it relevant and should it be addressed as they will try to use it? Any comments would again be much appreciated.


[FONT=&quot]Dear Sir/Madam,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your Ref:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I acknowledge your letter of 23 November 2016 and am treating it as a letter before action.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I deny responsibility for the charge as I was not the driver when the alleged contravention took place. I will therefore not be paying the unlawful invoice and will robustly defend any legal action taken against me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your client has failed to identify the driver and has also failed to comply with the PoFA 2012. Their incorrect assumption that I, as the registered keeper, was also the driver has no legal standing. I refer you to the 2015 POPLA report in which[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator, and barrister, Harry Greenslade clarifies ‘there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver’. I am under no legal obligation to name the driver and your client cannot legally hold me responsible for this charge as the registered keeper. I would also like to point out that Elliot vs Loake is not applicable as in this case there is no evidence of the identity of the driver. Elliot vs Loake was recently dismissed as "not persuasive and could be distinguished" in the case of Excel v Mr C (C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016). My assertion that I was not the driver will be made under a Statement of Truth and I will provide a letter from my employer at the time confirming I was at work near Aberystwyth, West Wales at the time the ticket was issued.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Notwithstanding my reasonable belief that your client's ‘initial legal costs’ have not in fact been incurred, they cannot be recovered.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Legal costs cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court. I refer you to CPR 27.14[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you insist that they are actually debt recovery charges, the total amount is a penalty. I refer you to ParkingEye vs Somerfield.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]They are in any case, none of my concern[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Even if your client had met the conditions of The Protection of Freedoms Act, additional charges cannot be recovered from the registered keeper.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I refer you to Schedule 4 para 4(5).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In addition the signage at the place of the alleged contravention is woefully inadequate and any contract with the driver is denied.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Further to this, the statement that ParkingEye vs Beavis eliminates my main defence is misleading. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case. The amount is a penalty and the penalty rule is still engaged.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Additionally your false assumption that I am ‘likely’ to receive a CCJ against me is misleading, threatening and breathtakingly arrogant. To presume to know the mind of a judge before a hearing has taken place is astonishing. I would be very interested in knowing how you are so sure you will win a case in which you have no legal standing whatsoever.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You should consider this a Section 10 Notice which gives you 21 days to respond or I will make a complaint to the ICO. Further, if you and/or your client continue to process my data I will seek damages for distress for this continued data protection contravention. Vidal-Hall v Google [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) establishes that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages for a breach of the DPA could include non-pecuniary damage. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750 so you may consider yourselves and your clients on notice of my intention and the distressing effects on me, of your data mishandling.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As your client has no legal reason to pursue the registered keeper in this case I now consider this matter closed. I expect confirmation of this in writing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yours Sincerely[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Post #18 on pepipoo, I've suggested a small tweak:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110217

HTH

geekfusion

Thanks for all the advice - I may remove the Parkingeye vs Beavis part as it is more applicable to the driver than the RK

geekfusion

Hello all and a Happy New Year

I have received a reply from BW Legal which is shown below. I am drafting a reply but any advice would be appreciated again.

Thanks in advance


We write in reference to the above matter and your recent email.

The Parking Charge Notice(“PCN”) was issued on the 23 March 2016 at the Peel Centre Stockport(“Car Park”) on the basis the vehicle, registration parked without displaying a valid ticket or permit. As per the terms of the PCN, you were allowed 28 days to pay a discounted sum or appeal the PCN, two options which have now expired.

We can confirm that Our Client is not reliant on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. We can confirm that if you are unwilling to provide the drivers details, Our Client is entitled to reasonably presume you were the driver at the time of the PCN.

Our Client is entitled to recover costs as stated on the Tariff Board which forms the terms and conditions of parking. As you were in breach of these terms you are liable for the Balance Due inclusive of additional costs. This is supported by Chaplair Limited vs Kumari [2015] which determined that no part of the Civil Procedure Rule override Our Client’s contractual entitlement to recover additional costs.

Given the above, we request you provide the driver details or contact us to discuss this matter further on within 14 days of this letter.

Failure to contact us by 13 January 2017 may result in us seeking our client’s instrucions which may result in further legal action and costs being added to your Balance Due.

Yours Faithfully

BW Legal

geekfusion

I have drafted this reply to the above letter. Any comments would be much appreciated. Thanks again for the help.

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing in response to your letter of the 30th December 2016.

Your clients presumption that I, as the registered keeper, was also the driver, continues to be incorrect and without legal standing. I refer you back to barrister Harry Greenslade. I have previously stated that I will provide a letter from my employer at the time confirming that I was at work near Aberystwyth, West Wales at the time of the alleged contravention thus proving that I was not the driver. Additionally I am under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to name the driver and, as your client does not rely on the POFA 2012, they cannot establish keeper liability.
On this basis your client has no legal reason to pursue me and further attempts to scare me into paying the alleged ‘balance due’ will be considered harassment.

Notwithstanding the above I have reasonable belief that your alleged ‘costs’ have not in fact been incurred. Unless proof of contract and payment of the costs is provided, the charge will be considered a Conditional Fee, and in accordance with CPR 48.2 and the Conditional Fee Agreement Order 2013 no liability is accepted.
In addition there remains the fact that I was not the driver. POFA Para(5) states that the maximum sum the parking company can recover is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper.That is the amount unpaid no later than the day before the notice was sent (POFA 9(2)(d)(ii)).

I again request that you cease mishandling my data. I will be making a complaint to the ICO concerning the distressing effects that your mishandling of my data is having on me. Please confirm in writing that you have deleted my details from your records.

Yours faithfully