is this true

crazynana

received a letter from bwlegal in december about a pcn that happened in 2014 asking for £245,00 wrote back and told them I was not the driver and can prove this Got a reply back saying that I am responsible has the rk because I did not reply to they early letters so I have replyed back saying I will defend this

pappa_golf

possably , but only if the company (parking co) fully complied with the POFa2012

who was the parking Co involved and what type of land/incident was this

pogofish

There are over a hundred threads here attesting to the truth of the BW Legal situation.

Quentin

Yes its true.


Go now to the newbies faq thread to learn how this "game" goes.


You are now too late to appeal and are in the debt collectors stage (you can ignore debt collectors)


Final stage is if they decide to take you to court (they have 6 years to take legal action)


If that does happen in future (or is happening now - you say you told them you would "defend" this??), then read up in the faq on how to deal with a court claim and preparing a defence and come back with your defence for comment

beamerguy

crazynana wrote: »

received a letter from bwlegal in december about a pcn that happened in 2014 asking for £245,00 wrote back and told them I was not the driver and can prove this Got a reply back saying that I am responsible has the rk because I did not reply to they early letters so I have replyed back saying I will defend this

OMG ...... BWLEGAL TALKING PURE RUBBBISH AGAIN

So it's a new wheeze because you did not reply ???

I tell you, the people that run this crazy outfit should be sent to Broadmoor as they are not just seriously ill, they are dangerous to themselves with all the self harming they are doing

Quentin

beamerguy wrote: »

OMG ...... BWLEGAL TALKING PURE RUBBBISH AGAIN

So it's a new wheeze because you did not reply ???

I tell you, the people that run this crazy outfit should be sent to Broadmoor as they are not just seriously ill, they are dangerous to themselves with all the self harming they are doing

It isn't "rubbish" as such!


They are telling the OP that as he chose not to reveal who the driver was they are training their sights on him/her as the keeper.


Many ppcs are pursuing the keeper to court now. That is why POFA compliance is so important when preparing a defence.


It's just too simplistic for you to advise the OP this is "rubbish"

pappa_golf

Quentin wrote: »

It isn't "rubbish" as such!


They are telling the OP that as he chose not to reveal who the driver was they are training their sights on him/her as the keeper.


Many ppcs are pursuing the keeper to court now. That is why POFA compliance is so important when preparing a defence.


It's just too simplistic for the OP to advise the OP this is "rubbish"

correct , the OP needs to read this question http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71921322&postcount=2

crazynana

the parking co is excel and it is a leisure entre and retail park

pappa_golf

excel joind the IPC 01/01/2015 , so at the time of the incident were BPA members

do you have a paperwork trail from thec time of the incident?

was it a ticket on the car , or anpr , how long was it before you recieved the NTK

to get an answer to your origional question you need to show more info ,

they either acted under the BPA code of practice (go after you) or did,nt in which chace they can only chase the driver

crazynana

the only paper work I have is from bwlegal and the court because I was away when this happened the oh throw all the paper work away I do know it was a letter on the car

beamerguy

Quentin wrote: »

It isn't "rubbish" as such!


They are telling the OP that as he chose not to reveal who the driver was they are training their sights on him/her as the keeper.


Many ppcs are pursuing the keeper to court now. That is why POFA compliance is so important when preparing a defence.


It's just too simplistic for you to advise the OP this is "rubbish"

Reference made to this ..... "Got a reply back saying that I am responsible as the rk because I did not reply to they early letters"

Total rubbish, what on earth has that got to do with not replying to letters. They have the keepers name and not the driver they were after, so the keeper was not the driver, that's why they try it on quoting the Loake case