Bw legal letter ..... LJLA

nosferatu1001

You can state that the IPC are not qualified to override the DfT requirements on road signs menat to be read by a moving vehicle. If they disagree with this, then I suggest they take it up with the DfT directly.

si_dean

Fantastic!
Thanks for that Nosferatu :0)

beamerguy

And to add

"been approved by senior management at the IPC"

If this was the case then they need to provide an onsite
report by these senior managers, if it exists ?

After the joke of BWLegal claiming they would rely
on Elliot v Loake and the courts knocking them
off their perch, one must wonder if this will be their
latest wheeze

si_dean

Hi All,


So I've just received their latest letter through (I actually thought that would be it but ten part of me realises the letter tennis can go on for quite some time until they realise they are getting nothing from me).


So to bring you all up to date, from the help from people above and some other tips elsewhere, my last letter I sent to them addressed:


* the signs on the roads leading u pto the airport contain ten times the number of words that can be safely read


* The print / font on the signs are not safely readable for a driver with legal eyesight driving as the speed limit of the road.


* I also pointed out facts (as kindly outlined by #beamerguy above) - that if the signs have been approved by senior management at the IPC, then they need to provide an on-site report by these senior managers.


* Added to this factor, I also stated that IPC are not qualified to over ride the DFT requirements on road signs meant to be read by a moving vehicle.


* I then finished by stating 'with all this in mind, plus they still have no proof of any contract they have with the land owners, I robustly conclude that they've failed to show a cause of action for any claim in law. This concludes the matter and I expect to hear no further from then or any agent of theirs. Any other course of action will be prime facie harassment.

---

so in their latest letter they have sent me, it pretty much emphasises how much of joke this company are trying to mug people off.


It would seem they have not really bothered reading my last letter (or bothered to address any of points on the letter I sent them) ... probably because they have nothing to come back to me with !!!


When I actually opened up this latest letter of there's, I actually shook my head and laughed at the opening title and sub-heading!


Their latest letter says (Discount Offer) - without Prejudice.
Immediately underneath this they have stated 'Despite previous reminders you have failed to make arrangements to pay your PCN or provide detailed grounds for disputing the PCN''..... yet ironically they know I have as they have responded each time to my letters they have sent ...... they really do dig themselves a whole when they say things like this"


In the letter, They are basically offering me a 40% discount if I pay within the next 3 weeks bla bla bla, with the subtle threat of county court proceedings and all the usual tosh they come out with!


They have not even addressed any of my points from my last letter (and yes I keep a copy and proof of postage receipt for everything I've sent them for peace of mind).

---

Can you lovely people advise how I am best going back to them now in my next letter.
As always, any helpful hints & tips will be gratefully appreciated. :0)

---

Quentin

si_dean wrote: »

Can you lovely people advise how I am best going back to them now in my next letter.
As always, any helpful hints & tips will be gratefully appreciated. :0)

---

#6 tells you what to do!!

Umkomaas wrote: »

Just ignore it. Come back only if you get a letter headed :Letter Before County Court Claim!!! (or very similar). No need to keep coming back every time you get a begging debt collector letter......
.

si_dean

the thing is though, I have had those letters with that titled on it, and I Subsequently responded to them.


So with that in mind, I take it with this latest letter from them with a (reduced offer), given that's all that is mentioned then I simply ignore this one too?


Furthermore, As I already received the 'letter before action' etc, what letters do I need to respond too moving forward. I just want to be clear on which ones I need to response to and which ones I can merely ignore?

Quentin

si_dean wrote: »

Furthermore, As I already received the 'letter before action' etc, what letters do I need to respond too moving forward. I just want to be clear on which ones I need to response to and which ones I can merely ignore?

Again.


Answered in #6!!


You look to have already sent a rebuttal to your lbcca?

si_dean

Yes, as already stated i sent a response to their initial letter before claim, so in that case i shall ignore this one :cool: