LBC from BW Legal - advice please

SingStar101

Hi Guys

I've received the attached letter and copied and edited a reply from the thread. I'd be really grateful for some advice on whether on not the reply is appropriate in my circumstances.

Basically, i received a PCN from premier parking solutions, replied and challenged the fine and never heard anything again so assumed the matter was dropped. I don't have a copy of any correspondence any longer. Some three years later i have received a letter from BW legal - unfortunately i can't attach a link as i'm a new user!

This is the reply i am intending to send:

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of 26th June 2018.
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon. Furthermore, upon receipt of letters from Premier Parking Solutions in summer 2015, I robustly responded and received no response and I therefore considered, and still consider, this matter to be closed.
Your client should be aware that on 01 October 2017 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 'Letter before Claim', without evidence and 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. 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 !!!8220;establishing yourself as the creditor!!!8221;
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) !!!8211; 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


I've seen some guidance from Coupon Mad and viewed the links about my particular parking company and it seems they don't take people to court - only one person in 2018 apparently.

I'd be really grateful for your input in relation to this situation.

Best wishes

SS

System

I've seen some guidance from Coupon Mad and viewed the links about my particular parking company and it seems they don't take people to court - only one person in 2018 apparently.

It's the holiday season - which means they send out a flood of these. If you reply as above, they are less likely to follow up with a claim.

What they are trying to do is find people on holiday or have moved, so any claim results in a default CCJ. There is also a further twist in that any claim that is defended will likely have a hearing just before Xmas which racks up the stress even more.

The Deep will be along later to give you more details of what you can do apart from replying to these letters.
This is all about misusing personal details to play the court system for personal gain.

KeithP

SingStar101, can you now please go back and delete your posts on other people's threads?

Thanks.

SingStar101

Sure, apologies for that - i was naive to the way the forum worked - wasn't meaning to hijack.

Thank you IamEmanresu for the reply.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor 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 lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

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 they will be out of business by Christmas.

SingStar101

Thanks for the reply, i will follow up with my MP for sure. Regarding the draft letter, does this look ok to you? Anything that i should remove or anything missing that should be there?

Thanks again, SS

SingStar101

Since posting in this thread i have since had an email from BW legal. I have no idea how they have managed to obtain my email address. Has anyone else experienced this?

I am intending to send a letter as a more formal reply rather than respond to the email and would be glad of some guidance on the content as above.

Thanks

SingStar101

Hi Guys

I had an LBC from BW Legal on behalf of Premier Parking Solutions.

Having researched the forum I replied to the letter with the following, and hoped that might be the end of it. However, BW have replied to each of the points raised in the initial letter. I initially sent this:

Dear Sirs

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of 26th June 2018.
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon. Furthermore, upon receipt of letters from Premier Parking Solutions in summer 2015, I robustly responded and received no response and I therefore considered, and still consider, this matter to be closed.
Your client should be aware that on 01 October 2017 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 'Letter before Claim', without evidence and 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. 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 !!!8220;establishing yourself as the creditor!!!8221;
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) !!!8211; 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

Unfortunately as a new poster i can't upload a copy of their reply, but Re point 2 in my letter, they have advised that they are pursuing me as registered keeper. Could i contest further on these grounds as i wasn't driving the vehicle and didn't park there.

Any other advise would be gratefully received. I'm starting to think they will pursue taking the matter to court.

Thanks in anticipation

SS

Quentin

Read up on POFA - if they have stuck rigidly to the POFA regs then they are allowed to train their sights on the keeper


Expect the possibility of a court claim to follow their reply to you - but wait and see

SingStar101

Hi

I have now had a letter from BW saying that they have issued legal proceedings in the form of a county court judgment to Northampton County Court (County Court Bulk Centre).

They then go on to say they may enter a county court judgement against me on or after 3rd October.

I read somewhere that NCC are not actually a "proper" county court.

The breakdown of the debt is as follows:

Principle debt £100 (parking fine)
Interest £24.84
Court Feed £25
Solicitors Costs £110.

Total £259.84

I am tempted to pay the £100 but the other costs seem slightly more ambiguous and i wondered if BW can actually pursue me for those costs.

They have confirmed they are pursuing me as the owner of the vehicle. I looked back at the signs on the car parking site and they say about paying at a meter - there was not meter to make payment. Am i passed the point of defence now?

Any help of advice would be gratefully received. I note Coupon Mad has indicated a 99% success rate but i cant run the risk of a CCJ.

Thanks

SS

Quentin

You have misunderstood their threats

They refer to getting a CCJ against you on October 3

But that would only happen if you ignore the court claim (which you won't will you?)

You only get a CCJ against you if you either ignore the court or lose in court.

Were you to do so you can pay it off in full within a month and it is expunged from the record

#2 in the newbies FAQ thread covers how to deal with a Court claim from receipt of the claim right through to the hearing

Assuming they have issued a claim then they will be unlikely to now accept just the £100 to withdraw!