BW Legal court threat for a 6 years old Parking ticket

beamerguy

Just shows how incompetent BWLegal are.

I would imagine that BWL said to Excel that everyting would be OK, Excel fell for it as they seem to do a lot of recently when they employ BWL.

Just another BWL joke

Kite2010

What are the chances the idiots at BW Legal will still attempt a court case even with the charge older than the Limitation Act allows? :rotfl:

Maxcens

What are the chances the idiots at BW Legal will still attempt a court case even with the charge older than the Limitation Act allows?

Should I even bother replying to them? I mean wouldn't that give them another reason to write threatening letter to me?

beamerguy

Kite2010 wrote: »

What are the chances the idiots at BW Legal will still attempt a court case even with the charge older than the Limitation Act allows? :rotfl:

It's because BWLegal are so incompetent, they may well proceed
and be whooped yet again

beamerguy

Maxcens wrote: »

Should I even bother replying to them? I mean wouldn't that give them another reason to write threatening letter to me?

YES, do what lamilad says.
You need to send this warning shot across their bow.

If their limited brain power ignores it, at least you will have something to show a judge ..... then the judge can whoop them

Loadsofchildren123

No, you should reply. If they are going to proceed, they'll proceed anyway. If you've written to point out the limitation problem, you'll have a stronger case to get this thrown out immediately. And I honestly would report them for harassment if they carry on. That's what it is. And the SRA complaint: solicitors should not be threatening proceedings which they know or should know are statute barred.


If proceedings are issued, write to the court immediately and ask for strikeout under CPR Rule 3.4. Technically you are supposed to issue an application notice (form N244)- which costs you a £255 court fee. However, the court has the discretion to make an order of its own volition (CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1 provides that the court can summarily dispose of issues which do not need full investigation and trial), or to accept a letter from you and treat it as if it were a formal application (CPR Part 23.3(2)(b) provides specifically that the court may dispense with the requirement for an application notice). The court can also deal with the matter on paper rather than requiring a hearing (CPR Rule 3.8(c))


So you write and ask the judge to make an order and point out his/her authority under these rules, enclose a copy of your letter to them telling them they are out of time and the claim is clearly statute barred, and cross your fingers the judge deals with it on paper. However, many judges are lazy or nervous of doing things like this - if the judge won't do it, you either apply (if you win you get the £255 back in costs) or just let the proceedings run their course with a 1-line defence and 1-line witness statement simply saying "this case is statute barred" with the relevant dates and quote from the statute.


Honestly, you have absolutely nothing to worry about (trust me, I'm a lawyer).

hoohoo

You should stall them.

There is a grey area on when the clock starts ticking, which is not the data of parking, or the date they sent the invoice, but when that invoice became overdue. So it could be 1-2 months after the event, depending on circumstances.

I would therefore write stating the debt is denied and if they disagree ask for a copy of the original PCN and signage in place at the time.

This should stall them for the required time

Loadsofchildren123

Good point hoohoo

Lamilad

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Good point hoohoo

Agreed, do as hoohoo says

Maxcens

Hi,

I have been advised by BMPA that:

"Since it is so long ago, these are best ignored. They send these letters out periodically to rattle you with the aim of either a) paying of b) you helping them by giving information they did not have in the first place. So ignoring is best.

You have rightly identified that there is a limitation so writing to them is not a good idea as you do not want to reset the 6 years."

I am now confused and very reluctant to do a anything. I mean, Excel or their representatives had 6 years to take me to court. why would they do it now?