Conkai Secuity / BW Legal - how to reply next

ojloverman

Hello all,
So I have been duly following instructions from this forum, but now have reached a point where I'm not sure what to do next.

Background
A car that I am registered keeper of was allegedly parked without a valid ticket/permit on 7th April 2016 in Kingston Court, Oxford.

On 18th August 2016 a letter arrived from Conkai Security demanding payment of £100 for the alleged parking contravention. Having searched the forums, I rebutted this letter mentioning POFA and that as the keeper I am not liable due to the 56 day window expiring (NTK arrived 133 days after alleged contravention).

The next correspondence I received was from a debt collection agency, requesting payment. I rebutted with more information from the forums, denying the debt and and also pointing our their data protection contravention by selling on the keeper details what I am not liable. The letter I sent is on MSE thread: t=5566898 (it won't let me post a link?)

I heard nothing then until BW Legal dropped me a letter on 9th November asking for £100 + £60 legal fees and a stipulated 16 day reply period. Then on 17th November, before I had had a chance to reply to the first letter, a "final notice" arrived, threatening with Count Court proceedings and referring to a letter sent 18th October.

I replied to the "final notice" letter pointing out their obvious administrative error. Following a template found on here (I believe gan). I denied the debt. I pointed out that I was not the driver and under POFA they cannot hold me liable. I also point out Elliot v Loake is not applicable in this case. I also threaten them with complaint to CSA and SRA due to them trying to mislead me over £60 legal fees.

I have now received a response from BW Legal. I will give the highlights below:

• Client does not intend to rely on POFA
• My position on Elliot v Loake is noted, however they maintain position on relevance of case and in absence of driver details presume I am the driver
• Client also intends to rely on Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films 2015. The employee/employer liability case
• £60 legal fees are reasonable. Payment of these fees forms part of Ts&Cs which 'were agreed by you by parking in the Car Park'. In support of this Claimant intends to rely on Chaplair v Kumari 2015
• Final comments about disclosure of details as the RK and a statement from the DVLA (weird as I have never mentioned DVLA!)

So I have 14 days to respond to this. My understanding from having a look online is that Elliot v Loake is not applicable due to it being a criminal case, with overwhelming foresic evidence. Similarly CPS v AJH is not applicable as this an employer/employee liability case, not the same here.

My question is how to respond to this letter? Do I remind them again of my position of EvL; and also why I think that CPS vs AJH is not applicable? I guess that this is eventually going to end up in court?

I cannot remember who was the driver at the time, it may have been some friends who borrowed my car on short term insurance from cuvva. Though, I presume it is BW Legal to prove who the driver was and I have to disclose nothing? What are the chances of the judge going on 'balance of probabilities' that I was the driver?

beamerguy

I can only think that BWLegal are now suffering with
the early signs of dementia.

The courts have already told BWLegal that their
idiotic claims of other cases are not applicable

See this thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5672664

BWLEGAL ARE TOLD .....
BW Legal try Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films yet again. Yawn. Claim dismissed

Judge explains why Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH films not relevant

Elliot v Loake/CPS v AJH films rubbished by judge

Judge "fed up" with BW Legal

Based on their stupidity, and the courts knowledge of
BWLegal, a 'balance of probabilities' is not really an option
for a judge.

Also, with the time limits they give you, seems like again,
BWLegal are not complying to the new procedure as from
1st Oct 2017.

This is why I think that they have early onset dementia

ojloverman

So should I refer them to all these cases in my reply? Also, not sure what the new procedures are? Should I mention this my reply?

pappa_golf

Conkai Secuity are owned by the same irriots as excell / vcs , a search for elliot and ajh films will show up more via excell /vcs

ps if Conkai Secuity take you to court it will be a first , check ALL paperwork and signage for leftover excell / vcs stuff , http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Conkai_Security.html

beamerguy

ojloverman wrote: »

So should I refer them to all these cases in my reply? Also, not sure what the new procedures are? Should I mention this my reply?

There is a lot on the net about this
http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/dr/final-version-of-debt-pre-action-protocol-released-in-force-1-october-2017/

Once BWLegal comply then that is time to respond.

If they do not comply that's when the court should be advised.
In particular "The debtor has 30 days to respond,
before proceedings may be commenced.

No point really in listing all their failures, the courts
already know about them.
You can say "numerous" and in the rare case you get
a judge who does not know, retain all the cases in your file.

So, just wait and see if BWLegal do anything, they clearly
read this forum, probably to keep up to date with their errors

Do read up on all the parking prankster links, they are fact
and there is enough info to see them off

======================================
This forum is proud to have a member called Lamilad who is
probably a BWLegal slayer ... no doubt he will be along soon
======================================

Lamilad

I replied to the "final notice" letter pointing out their obvious administrative error. Following a template found on here

It sounds like you've done all the right things so far and from what you've said to them they will know you've either done your research or are 'forum assisted'. They'll be well aware this means they'll probably loae in court - although, as above, it would be a first for this PPC.

I wouldn't bother saying anything else to them and certainly don't speak to them on the phone (they will probably try to ring you). Wait and see what happens next... If you get a court claim come back for advice

Ryandavis1959

Why don’t you just tell them who was driving the car so that you can discharge ANY liability that you have for the fake PCN? This means you’ll never have to spend another minute dealing with this matter.

Am I missing something why people are not advised to do this more often? I thought this was a Money Saving website, not a headache extender! If you wasn’t driving then just tell them who was and job done! I’m sure if you told a legal advisor that you wasn’t driving and you’re being falsely accused, they would advise to tell the parking firm who was driving to discharge any possible liability.

pappa_golf

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

Why don’t you just tell them who was driving the car so that you can discharge ANY liability that you have for the fake PCN? This means you’ll never have to spend another minute dealing with this matter.

Am I missing something why people are not advised to do this more often? I thought this was a Money Saving website, not a headache extender! If you wasn’t driving then just tell them who was and job done! I’m sure if you told a legal advisor that you wasn’t driving and you’re being falsely accused, they would advise to tell the parking firm who was driving to discharge any possible liability.

you are missing something , please go and read POFa instead of giving stupid advice ,

beamerguy

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

Why don’t you just tell them who was driving the car so that you can discharge ANY liability that you have for the fake PCN? This means you’ll never have to spend another minute dealing with this matter.

Am I missing something why people are not advised to do this more often? I thought this was a Money Saving website, not a headache extender! If you wasn’t driving then just tell them who was and job done! I’m sure if you told a legal advisor that you wasn’t driving and you’re being falsely accused, they would advise to tell the parking firm who was driving to discharge any possible liability.

Your agenda on this forum by keep telling people to
name the driver is the same agenda as parking companies.

Please stop giving such bad information.. and the OP is advised
to ignore you

nosferatu1001

Indeed - OP IGNROE ryandavis. they are just not currently worth listening too, as their advice is suspect.

ojloverman

Okay thanks for the advice guys. It would seem to be that I don't have to reply until they have sent a letter before action which complies with the 1st Oct 2017 regs. However, I would be interested in finding out if they have any evidence of who the driver was (CCTV say?). How would I go about replying and requesting this information? Am I even allowed to ask this?

I am completely ignoring the bogus advice of ryandavis. Even if I could recall who the driver was, it is my prerogative not to divulge this information to a private company.