BW Legal's Robust Response from MSE Template

flyingspud91

Evening All,

I submitted a template response as recommended by the newbie sticky copied below. Attached is there response which seems to my untrained eye to be rather robust. I can't see where to go from here? The cost is now £160 and I really don't want it to get to the stage where it goes to court.

Original Letter:

I am in receipt of your Letter of Claim of XXXX. Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

Your client must know that on XXXX 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.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. 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 reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.!

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

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. 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 establishing yourself as the creditor.

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.

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours Faithfully,

XXX

Their Response:

1. Our client cause of action is that you breached the terms and conditions of the contract which you entered into by parking your vehicle in the car park, by failing to display a valid pay and display ticket.

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

3. Our client does intend to reply on schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

4. The details of the claim and that your vehicle parked 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 the offer, acceptance and consideration 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 our 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 that 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 the 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 Regulated Car Parks (Code of Practice). This code of practice gives recommendations in regards to signage within the car park. The signs within the car park comply with the recommendations in the code of practice and therefore deemed reasonable.

10. £100 remains unpaid for the parking charge notice. Additionally, you are also liable for our £60 instructions fee as your file has been passed onto us.

11. This will be done in due course


If anyone can offer any advice I'd be hugely grateful!

Umkomaas

I really don't want it to get to the stage where it goes to court.

Get a landowner cancellation, or pay the charge. What other way(s) were you looking for?

Coupon-mad

Attached is there response which seems to my untrained eye to be rather robust.

Really?

It's a rubbish template, and we see people beat BW legal 99% of the time on here.

Here's that letter in a post the other day:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74461326#Comment_74461326

Here it is in April, same template, you could have been expecting it if you'd read enough BW Legal threads:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74141967#Comment_74141967

I can't see where to go from here? The cost is now £160 and I really don't want it to get to the stage where it goes to court.

It is at that stage, almost, and you will likely win, and there is no risk and NO POINT panicking and shelling out £160 because it seems daunting.

Is this Excel or VCS and where is the location and what 'contravention'? Which court is nearest you?

beamerguy

OH dear, BWLegal have got the hump, probably the heat

9. As established members of the Independent Parking Committee, our Client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Regulated Car Parks (‘Code of Practice’).

What's that got to do with the price of bread ? THE IPC BEING
A SCAM OFFERING "JUMPING JACK FLASH" with a kangaroo
court.


10. £100 remains unpaid for the parking charge notice. Additionally, you are also liable for our £60 instructions fee as your file has been passed onto us.

:rotfl:... no you are not, a court will not allow that, more
like a fake £60 because of debt collector fake fees which
BWLegal now call it "instructions" .... what a joke:rotfl:

You must see what you are up against with this lot
BWLegal - the list of failures growing

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5672664/bwlegal-the-list-of-failures-growing&highlight=bwlegal+the+list

Quentin

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving


You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving


The ppcs monitor here and can use posts in your thread against you


Don't be completing any of their reply forms!

Coupon-mad

Oh I also, forgot, this is such an old template, that thy get the name of the ATA wrong:

As established members of the Independent Parking Committee

The IPC has had the jumped up moniker 'International Parking Community' for 2 years:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/04/independent-parking-committee-change.html