Napier FCN

KUPPI

Hello, guys. We are back with another letter from BWlegal. This letter says this is - LETTER OF CLAIM. But it doesnt look like a real deal. Its all the same whats in previous letter, the only new thing added is - that we will need to pay also their clients court fees and blah blah blah. Basically, as we said, letter looks all the same as prev one.
We took the pic and posted below. Please have a look and tell us is that a real Letter of Claim, or just something they want to look like it. Is this one still have to be ignored ?

pics link - hxxp://imgur.com/a/MznJA

Coupon-mad

You need to reply to that one.

Litter it with things like 'any claim is vexatious and misconceived' and ask for all photos taken and the evidence for their client's contention that the driver 'left the site' and evidence of where the boundary of the site was communicated to drivers on signage.

And challenge the fact they are attempting double recovery of costs, because '£60 legal costs' plus another £50 'solicitors' fee' totalling £110 for the same thing - neither of which has actually been incurred because BW Legal are handling over a million cases at the moment with just six solicitors, so there is no legal input whatsoever in this conveyor belt model.

Notwithstanding the fact that the £90 charge is not due, and the keeper is not liable for it, in addition the misleading addition of a sum of £110 is beyond the amount that can be claimed in the small claims track, as BW Legal well know. As a litigant in person you are seriously prejudiced by having to face such lies and misleading demands from what others would believe to be a genuine legal firm.

Tell them all of this exchange of information will be shown in evidence, should the matter go to trial at a hearing and you await their evidence (all photos and all evidence they intend to rely upon) from their client, rather than stock 'robo-claim' demand letters designed to frighten and intimidate the public into paying an unconscionable amount, so extortionate that even the Supreme Court Judges in Beavis would not have upheld it. And remind them that in the POFA, the maximum sum that can be recovered is actually stated to be the sum on any compliant Notice to Keeper, no double recovery being allowed because - as was held in the Beavis case - the parking charge already includes a significantly large percentage for profit, where the PCN itself costs less than £15 including letters.

KUPPI

thanks a lot. but ive looked around a forum and im not really sure which template should i use as i reply to them. Can somebody please help me out.

Redx

there are no "templates" , this is something you write for yourself , preferably by adapting other LBC rebuttals and adding in what you were told to add

so look for other LBC rebuttals and follow the same path , adapting one for your own use

post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread has the details on LBC and MCOL letters and claims , please read it

ps:- you dont seem to be being proactive on this, instead of doing the research and being ready for the next stage, you are sitting back and then panicing when a new letetr arrives

you need to get off the back foot and get ahead of this , because nobody here will do it for you , BUT people will help you once you start helping yourself

KUPPI

Thats all i managed to put tohether, is it good enough ?

---

I note your Letter Of Claim dated

I deny any debt to your client. I will not be telephoning you but require further information in writing.

The driver is not identified in your letter and you have written to me as the registered keeper. I am not liable because I do not believe that your client invoked Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 with fully compliant documents.

You cannot presume that I am in possession of all the documents referred to in your letter and I require a copy of the Notice to Driver and Notice to Keeper to inspect as I have reason to believe that any Notice to Keeper was non-compliant, and so copies of these documents will ensure that I can make an informed decision. Please send copies of these and any documents that will be produced in the event of your threatened action, including copies of all photographs taken and evidence of the contract itself (clear evidence of the terms on the signs at the time). I would also ask that you send me a copy of the Penalty Charge Notice, as I am unaware of any Penalty Charge Notice being placed on the vehicle.!

I also require evidence of the contravention. If the driver is alleged not to have had a parking permit, I cannot be expected to know or answer to that allegation as keeper of the car. However, the burden remains with your client to produce evidence and I require that now (e.g. photographs of the driver leaving the site, if that is the allegation).

In order to understand my legal position, I also require the following information:

1. Is your client's intended action founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass?
2. What is the reason for the additional £60!charge?
3. Where was the £60 charge stated on signage? – Could you provide photo evidence of those signs?
4. If it is for legal services, has your client already paid it?
5. Could you supply evidence that there was no permit or authorisation to park?

All of this exchange of information will be shown in evidence, should the matter go to trial at a hearing.

When I receive the documents and your answers I will be in a position to make a more detailed response and as such, it would be wholly unreasonable and vexatious to proceed in the small claims track at the present time.

Yours Faithfully,

KUPPI

Any good, guys?

nosferatu1001

It's fine. It's a template, fairly recent. Chances are it won't be ready
If they do supply what you've asked for, what will you do with it?

Coupon-mad

I kind of thought I had told you what to put, in my last reply...I pretty much wrote it for you:

Litter it with things like 'any claim is vexatious and misconceived' and ask for all photos taken and the evidence for their client's contention that the driver 'left the site' and evidence of where the boundary of the site was communicated to drivers on signage.

And challenge the fact they are attempting double recovery of costs, because '£60 legal costs' plus another £50 'solicitors' fee' totalling £110 for the same thing - neither of which has actually been incurred because BW Legal are handling over a million cases at the moment with just six solicitors, so there is no legal input whatsoever in this conveyor belt model.

Notwithstanding the fact that the £90 charge is not due, and the keeper is not liable for it, in addition the misleading addition of a sum of £110 is beyond the amount that can be claimed in the small claims track, as BW Legal well know. As a litigant in person you are seriously prejudiced by having to face such lies and misleading demands from what others would believe to be a genuine legal firm.

Tell them all of this exchange of information will be shown in evidence, should the matter go to trial at a hearing and you await their evidence (all photos and all evidence they intend to rely upon) from their client, rather than stock 'robo-claim' demand letters designed to frighten and intimidate the public into paying an unconscionable amount, so extortionate that even the Supreme Court Judges in Beavis would not have upheld it.

And remind them that in the POFA, the maximum sum that can be recovered is actually stated to be the sum on any compliant Notice to Keeper, no double recovery being allowed because - as was held in the Beavis case - the parking charge already includes a significantly large percentage for profit, where the PCN itself costs less than £15 including letters.

Why on earth anyone needs a template when already given the words to use, I have no idea.

This is really old, and I personally dislike the wording, it is too weak:

You cannot presume that I am in possession of all the documents referred to in your letter and I require a copy of the Notice to Driver and Notice to Keeper to inspect as I have reason to believe that any Notice to Keeper was non-compliant, and so copies of these documents will ensure that I can make an informed decision. Please send copies of these and any documents that will be produced in the event of your threatened action, including copies of all photographs taken and evidence of the contract itself (clear evidence of the terms on the signs at the time). I would also ask that you send me a copy of the Penalty Charge Notice, as I am unaware of any Penalty Charge Notice being placed on the vehicle.!

KUPPI

Good evening. weve received response from BW legal. There is nothing new they say. We got again 14 days to pay the balance. And that they are looking forward to hear from me within next 14 days.

Im not really sure do i need to answer to this letter?! But all i can think of to write them is something between those lines - All i can see in your showed evidence is that the vehicle is parked within parking bay, and the valid parking ticket is displayed. And if you are professional law firm as you stated before, that you should clearly see that non of those evidence show any kind of contract breach.


And btw, couple of days ago i was at the same parking, and now they have changed that sign with the new sign, where now all is explained more carefully, if you know what i mean. And also that parking attendant now has jacket which states that he is wearing cctv or something.

Coupon-mad

All i can see in your showed evidence is that the vehicle is parked within parking bay, and the valid parking ticket is displayed. And if you are professional law firm as you stated before, that you should clearly see that none of those evidence photos show any kind of contract breach.

Yes, reply with the above and tell them any claim is wholly misconceived and without merit and you give THEM 14 days to supply evidence of a breach, and while they are about it, to explain from the client why the signs have been changed at the location, which you take to be an admission of failure.

Basically, use the robust words I encouraged you to use before.