BW Legal for Napier Parking - 1st Correspondence

Coupon-mad

Is making an offer without prejudice still advised in some instances?

Nope, because it doesn't work with BW Legal so forget that completely.

I am only thinking about it to make my life easier.

The opposite applies. It makes you appear weaker, and they will seize on that and proceed.

This also comes across as very weak:

I am fairly disappointed

I go for 'Stop patronising me...' like this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74046847#Comment_74046847

MW2725

Ok I've made some changes to my draft and added a little bit.

I would like to point out that BW Legals conduct so far has been absolutely disgraceful and the letters I have received are full typos, contradictions and outright lies. Companies like yourself are a big threat to consumers and prey on individuals that are less confident with such matters. As you seem to insist on wasting my time, I have a few points to address in response to your letter.

Your conduct has and continues to be very misleading. As an example should BW Legal not be making it clear to consumers that the expenditure form need only be completed by consumers that are admitting they owe the debt.

Additionally your letter dated xx states; "On xx you were granted a limited contractual license to enter the land known as ("site")..." Previously in your letter dated xx you confirmed that your client is pursuing me as the registered keeper of the vehicle so it is therefor wrong for your letter to assume that I, personally, was granted a limited contractual license. - Wasn't sure about this but noticed it today.

The other paragraphs from my last draft have remained the same.

Any thoughts?

Thanks all for your help so far!
Mark

Coupon-mad

Anything is fine, to keep them busy, but you will get a claim so read up on defences.