Conkai Secuity / BW Legal - how to reply next

ojloverman

Sorry to bump this thread, but I replied via email with an amended reply to the Letter of Claim I received.

Email is my usual method of response to these cowboys (I don't find them worth the cost of a stamp) however they have always responded to my emails via post. However this time (for the first time) they sent this as an email response to my reply

Good afternoon

Thank you for contacting BW Legal, before we are able to reply to your email, we need you to confirm some security questions which we have specified below.

1.Please complete your full name;

2.Please provide first line of your address and postcode;

In addition, please confirm one of the following:

!!!8226;Parking Charge Notice (PCN)Number

!!!8226;Date of the contravention

!!!8226;Place of the contravention

!!!8226;Vehicle registration

!!!8226;Make & Model of the Vehicle

Once we receive a response to the security questions, it will then enable us to provide you with a response to your email.

Kind Regards,

BW Legal

Am I correct in presuming I do not have to reply to this email and need not supply them with any details? Many thanks again for all your help

pappa_golf

data protection ,

give your name and address (they already have it)

give the PCN number (they already have it)


would you like them handing your data to anyone?

ojloverman

So I am just bumping this thread to keep you updated of the goings on with farcical BW Legal and, as usual, ask advice on next move

I sent a rebuttal to the LOC as advised on the forum. Putting together a few different pieces I read on here. BW Legal responded with a letter saying

We are putting your account on hold whilst we speak to our client

Great I thought. They've finally realised they have no basis for a claim and I won't be hearing from them again. But today I got another letter from them.

It's exactly the same as the first letter I received. A word for word copy with only the dates changed. Do I need to respond to this?

Coupon-mad

Yes send a copy of your previous reply, attached to a short sarcastic email...

...or you can refer BW Legal to the Parliamentary debate you will have read about here last month (no links from me, it's all over the forum in February - go and read about it, and how robo-claim solicitors were named and shamed, if you are not sticking around and reading threads every few days, which I believe someone about to face a court claim, should be!).

BW Legal have no idea what stage these robo claims are at, becase they have a handful of solicitors and deal with several MILLION claims, all at the same time. Lots of template letters flying around.

beamerguy

ojloverman wrote: »

So I am just bumping this thread to keep you updated of the goings on with farcical BW Legal and, as usual, ask advice on next move

I sent a rebuttal to the LOC as advised on the forum. Putting together a few different pieces I read on here. BW Legal responded with a letter saying

Great I thought. They've finally realised they have no basis for a claim and I won't be hearing from them again. But today I got another letter from them.

It's exactly the same as the first letter I received. A word for word copy with only the dates changed. Do I need to respond to this?

YUP just what we know about BWLegal
"The left hand has no clue what the right hand is doing"

They are just a joke ...... work on the first letter and
forget their stupidity.

Just shows how low cal they are

ojloverman1

I am bumping this thread as BW Legal seem to have resurfaced. 

Long story short, my car was allegedly parked without valid ticket on 7 April 2016. I have no idea who was driving - leant my car out a lot during that time as lots of my student friends didn't have one. They were late sending me a NTK (133 days) so cannot pursue me via POFA I think. We had a some letter ping pong (using templates) that culminated in a Letter Of Claim from BW Legal. I replied to their LOC using a template, to which they responded to me with the first ever letter again! I sent my first reply again and have heard nothing for several years.

Recently during the process of checking my credit report, I notice that BW Legal did a soft search on me in April 2019. I have moved house since then, and so - not wanting to get a CCJ sent to an old address that I would miss - I sent them an email informing them of my new address and to send their latest correspondence. 

A few days rolls past and in drops a letter from BW Legal. The letter is regards "the complaint recently received (yes in 2017!!)" and they have investigated and repsond fully to the matter below. They then outline a series of 19 bullet points, of which I will give a precis:

1. Details of the alleged contravention on 7 April 2016
2. They note that I believe I am not liaable as I was not the driver, and that my position on Elliott v Loake is noted, and they maintain their position on the relevance of this case.
3. They intend to rely on CPS Ltd vs AJH Films
4. They confirm the signs are prominent
5. Their legal fees of £60 are reasonable for a professional law firm
6. In support of them recovering these costs from me they refer to a case Chaplair Ltd vs Kumaru 2015
7. They empathise with my circumstances as the keeper, but I have had ample opportunity to provide driver details, and as a result Conkai are well within their contractual rights to recover this/

Bla bla, given all this they won't be upholding my complaint, but Conkai are still amendable to resolving this matter on a commercial footing bla bla.

I have been out of the game for a few years, can anyone direct me to right reply to this letter? I am presuming that quite a number of advancements have been made in the interim 3 years!

nosferatu1001

Template response...
NOt a huge number - you can ask them what intern is currently sending out these responses, given theyve never, ever won anything citing either EvL nor CPS v AJH films...

D_P_Dance

They intend to rely on CPS Ltd vs AJH Films

They will struggle, read some of these

google.com/search?q=elliot+v+loake+1983&oq=eliot+v+loake&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l2.8862j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Their legal fees of £60 are reasonable for a professional law firm

Perhaps, but they are not allowed in small claims.

Coupon-mad

Yes just reply sarcastically again and tell them you will counterclaim for £500 for harassment, breaches of various consumer leglislation and abuse of your data under the DPA 2018, if Conkai try a claim, bearing in mind it's already been tested at appeal in Excel v Smith (append a transcript, it's in the Parking Prankster's case law pages).