Excel - Notice of Intended Court Proceedings

adbe

The_Deep wrote: »

Did the PPC comment on your allegation that the PCN was delivered out of time when they dismissed your appeal?


If they ignored it I do not fancy their chances in court.

Yes - their response was that they did not refer to POFA

Please note that responsibility for this Charge lies with the driver of the vehicle at the time the parking contravention was observed. However, we are unable to ascertain who the driver was on the date in questions from the information given within your appeal.

You state that our Notice is not compliant with the Protection Of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. We have not cited POFA 2012 nor stated that you are liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper

I had hoped it would go away at this point - as they have said it is not my responsibility, and they are unaware of the driver's identity.

adbe

The_Deep wrote: »

Send another copy FCP, get a free certificate of posting from the PO.

Would you still recommend this if the Recorded Delivery one was signed and accepted? (tracking confirmed as signed/delivered)

Quentin

adbe wrote: »

Would you still recommend this if the Recorded Delivery one was signed and accepted? (tracking confirmed as signed/delivered)

No need.

You have proof they got it!

adbe

Latest Update - received a "Your account has been passed to our legal team"

My details have been passed to BW Legal to collect £160 (£100+£60 alleged legal fees)

I can OCR the letter if it's helpful to others, but it's the usual CCJ threat on Excel Letterhead(Page 1) BW Legal letterhead (Page 2)

Does this now have any interesting data protection implications since they have confirmed they do not know the driver's identity, but have continued to sell my information (as the keeper) to their legal/collections team?

beamerguy

adbe wrote: »

Latest Update - received a "Your account has been passed to our legal team"

My details have been passed to BW Legal to collect £160 (£100+£60 alleged legal fees)

I can OCR the letter if it's helpful to others, but it's the usual CCJ threat on Excel Letterhead(Page 1) BW Legal letterhead (Page 2)

Does this now have any interesting data protection implications since they have confirmed they do not know the driver's identity, but have continued to sell my information (as the keeper) to their legal/collections team?

BUT .... you DO NOT have an account with them

Scammer and debt collector letters together.

This is now where BWLegal must be very careful
to fully comply to the new procedure

Coupon-mad

They haven't sold it to a legal firm.

They are using BW Legal to sue you. But it's defendable, as per all the other dozens (maybe over a hundred) 'won' BW Legal cases here last year.

Money...MATTERS

adbe wrote: »

Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence you place reliance upon.

You must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with...

Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol...

I just wanted to check; if the letter is from Excel do you address them directly by using words such as "Your letter, "You must" or is it okay to interchange by saying "Your client" as if the letter has come from a debt collector? Thank you

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose) and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

KeithP

Money...MATTERS wrote: »

I just wanted to check; if the letter is from Excel do you address them directly by using words such as "Your letter, "You must" or is it okay to interchange by saying "Your client" as if the letter has come from a debt collector? Thank you

If it comes from a debt collector - ignore it.

If it is a Letter of Claim from a solicitor - use 'your client'.

If it is a Letter of Claim from the PPC itself - use 'your letter' and you must'.