Letter of claim from BW Legal

Umkomaas

2. Our Client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date of the contravention.
3. Our Client does not intend to rely on The Protection of Freedoms Act ("POFA").

That could be a bit of a problem for them.

As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, Our Client, in the absence of the driver's details, reasonably presumes that you were the driver and we refer you the recent Court of Appeal case of Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453.

What - no Elliott v Loake? Have they finally dropped that non-starter? Talking of a non-starter, CPS v AJH Films falls right into that category too - a case of an employer/employee relationship in the context of the employer being held liable for the actions of their employee when picking up a PCN.

The_Deep

They will struggle in court, is there anyway OP can lodge a counter claim? How about CPR27.14 (2)(g) costs?


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/motorist-wins-appeal-cps-vs-ajh-films.html

Castle

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Good to know they've killed their own case. There's plenty out there which completely debunks the Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd case, and renders it irrelevant for a case like yours.

Such as Launchbury v Morgans (1972), which is from an even higher court; the House of Lords:-
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1972/5.html

nosferatu1001

Oh wow, BW are doing an amazing job at taking aim at their own feet

I would respond back, and asking them whether they will uphold their first duty - to the court - and inform the court that this case revolved around an agent / principal relationship? Or will they yet again actively seek to mislead the court, by withholding key information about their cited case law, of which you have ample reports of in the public domain?

The_Deep

I wonder if a judge would award unreasonable behaviour costs.

In my opinion, quoting this case, or Eliot v Loake, is misleading and an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the defendant. It is not something that an ethical Law Firm should attempt. It is certainly worth a complaint to the SRA.

twhitehousescat

STOP PRESS


photos just released of BWlegal xmas party 2017

yorkshell_2

I have now received the following response from BW Legal, along with photos of the vehicle, a close up and very pixelated image of the signage and also the location of the signage at the site in question, along with copies of the original notification that I have allegedly already received. The driver wasn't aware of any such signage and has therefore not entered into any contract. I have OCR'd their response so I can add on here:

Further to the query you raised with us on 13 February 2018, Our Client has now provided us with the information you have requested and we have enclosed this for you.
We trust this now concludes any outstanding queries you had raised with ourselves. It is important that you now contact us in order that we can discuss an affordable payment arrangement.
Failure to contact us within 14 days may lead to the following:
!!!8226; Further collections activity; or !!!8226; Further legal action
What You Need To Do Now
Call us on 0113 323 4485 and one of our helpful agents can either set up an affordable payment arrangement for you taking into account your financial circumstances or our helpful agents can settle any query you have.
How To Pay
We can accept payment by a variety of methods which are specified overleaf. Direct Debit or a recurring card payment are the most popular choices as you simply tell us the date you want to make payment each month and the payment will be taken automatically so you don't have to worry about it. This can help you avoid falling into arrears with your account.
Manage Your Account Online
You can manage your account online by visiting our website https://www.bwlegal.co.uk and clicking on the customer login link to set up your account online. Our customer portal provides you with the functionality to speak to us by webchat, complete your income and expenditure, make a payment or set up an affordable payment arrangement at your convenience.
Yours sincerely

BW Legal

Coupon-mad

Dear BW Legal,

My letter was not a 'query'. Stop patronising me and acting like you are a customer service agent. You and your ilk are a serious threat to consumers in this country. Cease and desist - this is now unwarranted harassment and your client is causing significant distress to me and my family.

It is important that you now stop contacting me pretending you are wanting to 'help' discuss an ''affordable payment arrangement'' for a debt that does not exist. How dare you demand that I complete details of my income and expenditure, for a fake charge from a notorious ex-clamper, propped up by you, a shameful robo-claim legal firm who were named and shamed in Parliament last month.

Your letter gave away my complete lack of liability in these words:

''2. Our Client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date of the contravention.
3. Our Client does not intend to rely on The Protection of Freedoms Act ("POFA"). Instructions were provided on the PCN on how to proceed if you were not the driver at the time the contravention occurred.
As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, Our Client, in the absence of the driver's details, reasonably presumes that you were the driver and we refer you the recent Court of Appeal case of Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453.''

Good luck with that old chestnut. What - no Elliott v Loake? Forget them both.

Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd has no application in a case that does not involve employer/employee vicarious liability and has been debunked in dozens of Excel/VCS cases, as you well know. I refer you to Launchbury v Morgans (1972), a case heard in the House of Lords.

This continued contact and demands for money from a person who is not liable in law, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the constant bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.

I also suffer from a chronic pain condition and the stress and anxiety caused by all this is making my symptoms worse. A chronic condition likely to last more than 12 months means I have a protected characteristic as defined within the Equality Act 2010 (the EA), and you and your client are making it worse. Harassment of a person who meets the definition of disability under the EA is specifically illegal within the statute under section 26:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I repeat - you know I am not liable in law. Outwith the POFA, there is no 'keeper liability'.

Stop writing misleading letters. Stop writing any letters. Your client has no cause of action against me and must take it up with the driver, and should have done so in a timely manner, establishing on the day who that party was, if they felt there was a parking charge due.

Take formal note, and tell your clients: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. You and your client must now stop processing my data and delete it from your records after cancelling the meritless 'charge' you are chasing, to my huge distress.

If your client proceeds to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum your client is unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a week-by-week basis, as evidence to support my position. The unwelcome and detrimental effect on my chronic pain condition can be shown by evidence from my GP, to have flared up as a result of your unreasonable and unwarranted demands, and I will have no hesitation in seeking the full amount of damages the Judge sees fit to award.

I am aware of the following two cases in the past year:

- on Friday 16th March, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his £500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.

- in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded £900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant (same as your client's NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall (mirroring the conduct of BW Legal's robo-claim modus operandi) had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from £100 to £300 by adding spurious amounts.

Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.

I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you and your clients.

yours faithfully,

yorkshell_2

Wow. Thank you so much for this. I will be sending this off to them immediately. The thing is that I also suffer from a chronic pain condition and the stress and anxiety caused by all this is making my symptoms worse.

Coupon-mad

The thing is that I also suffer from a chronic pain condition and the stress and anxiety caused by all this is making my symptoms worse.

Ooh, I will add that...

OK - Edited it to add some more stuff. See if you are happy with the wording.