Letter of Claim received (BW Legal) - help please!

chica0208

Hi,

We have received the 'letter of claim' from BW Legal on behalf of VCS, which they have been promising for 18 months. Is this the same as a 'letter before court' which people refer to? It seems to me that this is still the final stage BEFORE that, given the new protocol (chance to settle outside court etc).

So, my initial questions are:

1) should we return the reply form? (Box I dispute the debt)
2) is this the point where we should draft a detailed defence to show that we're not backing down? Or keep it short and simple at this stage?

Long story short - no evidence of who the driver was, VCS didn't adhere to POFA timelines, they "don't use POFA" apparently, and are going after the registered keeper on the assumption that he was the driver given that he didn't provide any evidence to the contrary, oh and surprise surprise they keep quoting Elliot v. Loake at us in all correspondence.

We only ever argued on the basis that the RK was not the driver at the time, and didn't go into any other detail to do with the actual legality of the ticket (private land, poor signage, etc etc) but I now think we need the most robust defence possible. Can anybody advise please, and/or assist us in drafting the defence in terms of the most common complaints we should refer to?

It's worth adding that we did ask for proof of authority to give tickets on this land, from the landowner, and on both occasions were denied said documentation, so I guess we should be asking for that evidence again?

Unfortunately we don't live near the site where the ticket was issued so didn't have any photos of signage at the time (September 2016) - we did go and take some photos this week but of course we don't know if these may have been amended since 18 months ago!

Thanks in advance for any advice and input!

Quentin

The Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum covers how to deal with a lbcca.

Go there now (#2 there covers court claims from receipt of the letter before court right through to the hearing)

The_Deep

BWL were especially mentioned in the House of Commons last week as operating colluding with PPCs to operate a scam. They have been reported to the SRA by at least one MP, so hopefully they will be struck off in the near future.

Yours is a classic case of attempting to obtain monies where no is owed, Watch this

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

and complain in the most robust of terms to your MP. Let us close these scammers down once and for all.

beamerguy

"no evidence of who the driver was, VCS didn't adhere to POFA timelines, they "don't use POFA" apparently, and are going after the registered keeper on the assumption that he was the driver given that he didn't provide any evidence to the contrary, oh and surprise surprise they keep quoting Elliot v. Loake at us in all correspondence. "

How is the letter headed ??

BWLegal are just chancers and to this day, they do not
know who the driver is ....... a dodgy one for them
to prove, especially as they they use dear old Eliiot v Loake ???

How many more times do the courts have to tell them
it's not applicable.
Whatever funny stuff BWL are still using, will get them
into a lot of trouble especially with the SRA.
The government is now well aware of practices by BWLegal

Depending on how the letter is headed will depend if you
should reply

chica0208

Thanks for all this. I have read the Newbies thread post #2 - I currently have about 25 tabs open on my laptop from this site, Pepipoo and Parking Prankster as well as a long word document with all the advice and notes I've compiled along the way! I just wasn't sure if what we have received warrants a full, robust, detailed, evidenced defence, at this stage?

It is entitled "Letter of Claim", and includes an information sheet, a reply form, and an income and expenditure form (seriously!?!?) - it says we need to either pay the debt or provide reasons for non-payment by a specific date (35 days from the date of the letter). It says "if payment or a response is not received before xx March 2018, we are instructed to issue a Claim against you in the County Court without further notice. If you dispute this debt, please tell us why so that we can help resolve this matter."

I know from all my research that VCS (and/or Excel) - by not complying with POFA and therefore no keeper liability but then pursuing the keeper anyway - have lost time and time again, however, it also seems that some judges are better versed in this type of case than others, so I do want to ensure the defence we put together is as robust as possible. Just not sure if we need to detail and evidence everything now, or if there is still another chance to do so (presumably once court papers are actually issued?)

Also, can somebody explain the "prohibitive signage / no offer of parking therefore no contract can have been entered / therefore trespassing instead etc" element which I keep reading about? I tried to argue this originally but it was refuted. The signage states "permit holders only" so as the vehicle was parked without a permit, I'm not quite sure what this means? Or maybe I'm clutching at straws here :-D

Thanks in advance! There's just so much to get your head around.

Coupon-mad

I just wasn't sure if what we have received warrants a full, robust, detailed, evidenced defence, at this stage?

No - read post #2 of the NEWBIES THREAD for how to deal with a LBC.

KeithP

Chicka, why on earth are you reading this well out of date thread:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4754020

Your LBC robust reply is in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

chica0208

Can you see what I am reading!? I didn't realise that was possible!

Thanks - a quick Google search yielded numerous results but I did notice before seeing your message that this thread in particular was from 2013, hence no longer applicable! I've now read through the two examples on the Newbies thread and will use them as we write a response.

Quick question then - should we send our own letter, ignoring the 'reply form' that they sent us? Or should we send the whole lot back together?

KeithP

Ignore their forms.

Just sent the robust response which asks for missing stuff.

Check the list against what you have received as it would be silly to ask for things they have already sent.

Coupon-mad

chica0208 wrote: »

Can you see what I am reading!? I didn't realise that was possible!

No of course we can't, we just knew the thread you were mentioning.

chica0208

Thank you. What does "an explanation of the cause of action" actually mean!?

The letter states "Contravention Description: Parking without displaying a valid ticket/permit" along with the contravention location - is this sufficient or should they be providing more information here?

I already know from previous correspondence that they are not relying on POFA, and are pursuing as driver - so rather than ask these questions again, would something like this be better?

2. clarification of whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper; and if as driver, then please also provide the evidence that I was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention (which I dispute)
3. written confirmation that they are not, as previously stated in correspondence, relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012