BW Legal for Napier Parking - 1st Correspondence

MW2725

Hi guys,

I've been lurking on this forum for quite some time since receiving a PCN from Napier back in 2016. I had foolishly already decided to ignore the original notices and subsequent letters after which the claim was referred to a debt collector. I believe i did issue the debt collector with a template letter stating the debt was denied and to refer it back to Napier after which I didn't hear anything else.

Now a over a year and half since the original notice, I have received a letter from BW legal. I have been reading the advice on the forum about LBCs and also read through a number of threads dealing with BW legal and have created a draft letter using the information available on here which has been very helpful!

The thing is the letter I have had form them doesn't clearly mark itself as a LBC, so I'm unsure whether to treat it as such. It simply states they have been instructed by Napier Parking in relation to balance due and that they require payment within 16 days from the date of the letter.

I have included my draft letter below:

Dear Sirs,

Re: Napier Parking PCN

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of the above letter dated XXXXXX.

It is unclear whether the correspondence issued to me is a letter before claim, but I will treat it as such.

The Practice Direction requires us to exchange sufficient information to understand each other’s position. With that in mind your letter does not contain sufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client relies upon.

The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter, in order for the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without the need to request further information.

The letter should include

1. A clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based.

2. If financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.

3. The letter should also – List the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely.

Additionally, unless the defendant is known to be legally represented your letter should refer the defendant to the practice direction. In particular your letter should ensure it is clear that the court can impose sanctions for failure to comply with the practice direction.

In order for me to respond in full, please also provide me with the following:

1.The original parking charge notice

2. The car parks terms and conditions as referenced in the previous letter

3. The picture of the signs at the location detailing the car parks terms and conditions

4. Evidence of the contravention occurring

5. The operator’s contract which allows them to operate at the site, or confirmation they own the land in question.

Please ensure that all documents are timed and dated correctly and can be proved to have been taken at the time of the alleged contravention (with particular reference to time-stamped photos).

In order to comply with the Practice Direction, please also provide:

1. A clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based.

2. An explanation of how the amount due has been calculated and what it is based upon.

3. A list of the essential documents on which you intend to rely.

I would also like to know whether Napier are relying upon POFA 2012 for 'keeper liability'.

Please respond with all the information requested and the necessary information required to comply with the Practice Direction.

Without the information I have listed above, of which your client is obligated to provide, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and consider my position in relation to it, and it would be entirely premature and additionally a waste of costs and court time for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so I will request an immediate stay referencing paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction, and order that this information is provided.

Yours Sincerely

I wanted to ask is it worth sending this letter at this stage or sending a more basic letter denying the debt?

Also not sure worth mentioning but I moved address since the original correspondence from Napier the Debt Collectors and am now back at my parents until next week. I have no idea how they got my parents address as I haven't owned the same car since summer last year and have only been here since January. Is it worth asking them how they managed this in my letter?

Please let me know if im being a pain, I see you guys get this type of thing all of the time!

Thanks,
Mark

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another 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.

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

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.

Umkomaas

Treat it as a LBC, then see how they respond to your request for more information.

Have you asked for absolutely everything to which you are entitled?

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf

KeithP

Nothing in your LBC response about the October 2017 Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims and how their LBC fails to meet those requirements. For example, the new PaP requires the claimant to give 30 days notice, not 16 days.

There are some sample robust LBC responses linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

MW2725

Thanks everyone so far!

I had failed to notice the current pre-action protocol at first and was focusing on the previous practice direction.

I have amended the letter and simplified it a bit with, I will admit, a little bit of copying from the suggested letters. The main changes on the letter are below. I plan to post tomorrow morning. I have tried to keep it simple so far, rather than referencing a lot of specifics so that it is easier for me to understand haha.

Your letter does not contain sufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client relies upon. I would hope that your client knows that as of 1st October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims.

In line with both the previously applicable Practice Direction and the current Pre-Action Protocol I am requesting that your client provides the below information, as it is required to.

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims effective from 1 October 2017 states that the claimant should allow the debtor 30 days to reply to any letter of claim, however your letter states you are allowing 16 days for a response. On this basis I find it hard to trust that BW Legal are acting in line with the Pre-Action protocol and would ask that they ensure moving forward, they do comply.

Any more suggestions are welcome of course.

Thanks again,
Mark

Coupon-mad

I'd remove this - you WANT them to slip up, so you can mention it in the defence:

and would ask that they ensure moving forward, they do comply.

MW2725

So i sent my letter as posted above on the 23rd of March with a couple of amendments as suggested. Thanks for all the help. BW Legal have replied stating;

"Please see responses to the points which you have raised below

1. Our clients cause of action is that you breached the terms and conditions of the contract which you enter into by parking your vehicle in the car park, by failing to display a valid Pay & Display Ticket.

2. Our client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3. Our client does intend to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

4. The details of the claim are that your vehicle parking without displaying a valid PDT.

5. The parking Charge Notice which you have been issued with is for a breach of contract. The only right which you have to enter the land in question are on the terms and conditions which apply. It is unnecessary to apply an analysis of offer, acceptance and considerations quite simply because the contract was formed on mutual promises. By parking your vehicle in the car park you have entered into a unilateral contract with out client. Acceptance does not have to be communicated, the act of parking your vehicle is acceptance.

6. This is not a claim for trespass.

7. Please be aware the contract between our client and the landowner is a legally privileged document which you have no right to inspect. However, should this matter progress to court, the contract will be adduced as evidence.

8. Our client is under no obligation to supply this.

9. As established members of the Independent Parking Committee, Our client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ('Code of Practice'). This code of practice gives recommendation in regards to the signage within the carpark. The signs within the car park comply with the recommendations in the code of practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.

10. £xx.xx remains unpaid for the parking charge notice. Additionally, you are also liable for our £xx.xx instruction fee as your file has been passed to us.

11. This will be issued in due course."

The letter also attaches photos of the vehicle and asks that contact is made within 7 days of the letter to discuss repayment.

Do you guys have any suggestions on what the next move should be?

Thanks,
Mark

KeithP

The letter [...] asks that contact is made within 7 days of the letter to discuss repayment.

Can you expand on this please?

Do they say what will happen after that seven days?

The point is that the PaP states that they should not start court proceedings for at least 30 days from supplying the information requested.

MW2725

Doesn't say what will happen after 7 days. It's already been 7 days as of today anyway.

beamerguy

MW2725 wrote: »

Doesn't say what will happen after 7 days. It's already been 7 days as of today anyway.

BWLegal must Obey PaP, so the 7 days is just a figment
of their imagination.

YOU MUST BE GIVEN 30 DAYS

Maybe you should point out that you require a professional
reply in line with PaP before you can respond

Coupon-mad

MW2725 wrote: »

9. As established members of the Independent Parking Committee, Our client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ('Code of Practice'). This code of practice gives recommendation in regards to the signage within the carpark. The signs within the car park comply with the recommendations in the code of practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.

Standard letter template, nothing has changed:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73113280#Comment_73113280

Notice how they keep making the mistake of calling the IPC the (very old name) Independent Parking Committee, hahaha! :rotfl: