LBC from BW Legal - advice please

nosferatu1001

Do you have a claim form? Yes or No

If No, then it is likely on its way to you.
As told above, post TWO of the newbies thread takes you through this step by step

Certainly the £110 is not claimable in small claims, and BW are entirely aware of this. How they are allowed to continue to claim otherwise is a mystery.

SingStar101

Hi,

Thanks for your replies.

The notice i have received recently is from BW Legal, i'm unsure if this is a claim form - its titled NOTICE OF COUNTY CLAIM COURT ISSUED. i don't think its the claim form itself.

Regarding the questions i put to BW legal

they responded to question:

3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012?

with the following:

"our client does not intend to reply on schedule 4 of POFA 2012"

Re question 8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed

They replied that they are under no obligation to supply this.

They also did not provide information requested in point 7.

Would these be sufficient grounds for an appeal to POPLA?

SingStar101

Sorry me again,

Coupon Mad wrote the following for someone which might be applicable

It is important that you now stop contacting me pretending you are wanting to 'help' discuss an ''affordable payment arrangement'' for a debt that does not exist. How dare you demand that I complete details of my income and expenditure, for a fake charge from a notorious ex-clamper, propped up by you, a shameful robo-claim legal firm who were named and shamed in Parliament last month.

Your letter gave away my complete lack of liability in these words:

''2. Our Client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date of the contravention.
3. Our Client does not intend to rely on The Protection of Freedoms Act ("POFA"). Instructions were provided on the PCN on how to proceed if you were not the driver at the time the contravention occurred.
As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, Our Client, in the absence of the driver's details, reasonably presumes that you were the driver and we refer you the recent Court of Appeal case of Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453.''

Good luck with that old chestnut. What - no Elliott v Loake? Forget them both.

Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd has no application in a case that does not involve employer/employee vicarious liability and has been debunked in dozens of Excel/VCS cases, as you well know. I refer you to Launchbury v Morgans (1972), a case heard in the House of Lords.

This continued contact and demands for money from a person who is not liable in law, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the constant bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.
BW indicated that they were pursing me as registered keeper

Although BW seem to have reduced their wording to "our client does not intend to reply on schedule 4 of POFA 2012"

Do you think i could still use this letter as a template?

Thanks again

SS

Umkomaas

Would these be sufficient grounds for an appeal to POPLA?

POPLA? Premier Parking Solutions are no longer BPA operators, they joined the IPC in March 2016. POPLA does not apply for IPC Operator cases.

I note your parking event was in 2015, POPLA would have been available to you then, but three years on, I'm afraid that ship has long sailed.

Coupon-mad

I am tempted to pay the £100

That would be stupid, and no it would not stop them.

I note Coupon Mad has indicated a 99% success rate but i cant run the risk of a CCJ.

Nor can any of us, pretty much.

You seem to have missed the fact that even the 1% don't get a CCJ! OMG read up on it.

I REPEAT - THE RARE PEOPLE WHO LOSE HERE ON THIS FORUM AFTER DEFENDING A CLAIM, DO NOT GET A CCJ. NOTHING, NADA, THEY JUST PAY ABOUT £150 - £175 (yes...less than is being demanded...).

There is ZERO effect on credit rating if you defend.

WE ARE NOT PUTTING YOU AT RISK OF A CCJ.

The example reply you found, makes no sense for your case. In it, I was berating BW Legal for trying to pretend that they could assume who was driving, in a NON-POFA case.

But yours is purported to be a POFA case, and they are holding you liable as keeper.

Did you try searching the forum for BW Legal PPS Letter Claim to find a case a bit like yours? Why don't you simply read another 2015 PPS case on the forum right now, such as those started by posters called:

phoenixfreespirit

and another by:

Justice13075

No link given, not from me! It doesn't help - this is your case/your forum to research!

Go find them. Read them...within reason... If you ignore the stuff in the first thread (about the Equality Act and the passenger's disability) you can cobble together a relevant reply, given that PPS didn't jump from the BPA to the IPC until 01/03/2016, so were under the BPA CoP in 2015, not the IPC.

All 3 of you are handling a BW Legal claim re a 2015 PPS PCN, from when they were in the BPA, so why not exchange private messages and bookmark each other's threads, and come back regularly to check each other's progress and advice received?

SingStar101

Hi Coupon Mad

Thanks for your reply and guidance. Its very much appreciated.

I have spent the last few hours reading through the various advice on the forums - your tip to look at the cases of phoenixfree spirit and justice13075 was helpful.

To that end, i have written the following. I'd be very grateful if you could have a read of this and make any further recommendations.

Dear Sirs,

This is a formal response to your 'Letter before Claim' and your latest letter of 13th September 2018, a well-known template which makes no attempt to narrow the issues, inform me of any facts, nor to resolve the dispute. You appear to have ignored my letter of 19th July 2018 (copy enclosed) where I laid out a number of issues in relation to the fine you are attempting to impose. This is entirely consistent with the behaviour of your client, whom also failed to reply to my correspondence, resulting in me receiving your initial LBC, some 3 years after the alleged parking transgression took place. I know my correspondence to you was received, as it was sent by recorded delivery. Your attempt at escalation of this matter, through your ‘notice of county court claim’ is clearly an attempt to bully and intimidate me into payment.

I am well aware that this “industry” is built on scamming the public with inflated, spurious claims, that firms of your ilk have been reported to the regulatory authority for unprofessional conduct, and that MP’s have enacted a bill to enforce greater regulation.

Furthermore, I have identified at the material time that PPS were BPA members, yet you have made no effort to point me towards the correct Code of Practice (with set grace periods, etc.) that applied on the date in question.

I am confident that the courts would take a very dim view of your handling of this matter.

Finally, kindly stop calling this scam an 'account'. I have no account with your client and they and firms of their ilk have no consumer 'customers', so stop using your template terminology, clearly designed to fool the court into actually thinking for one minute that this is some sort of debt.

Be advised I am copying this letter and all correspondence to:

(a) my MP
(b) the local newspaper (the xxxx xxxxxxx)
(c) the site owner*

You must consider my initial letter a Subject Access Request for your client's Data Protection Officer to reply to with the required data, within 30 days.

I reiterate, that If your client does not provide me with the above information, then I will ask 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 new 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 in the meantime.

Yours faithfully


Thanks again for your help

beamerguy

Personally I would remove this part ... You do not want to work
on the same low level that BWLegal do

"I am well aware that this “industry” is built on scamming the public with inflated, spurious claims, that firms of your ilk have been reported to the regulatory authority for unprofessional conduct, and that MP’s have enacted a bill to enforce greater regulation."

BWLegal already know this as do we all together with the courts.

Slowly, BWLegal are hanging themselves anyway

If they do not give you the info required under the new
protocol, it shows they run a shoddy practice to which we know
already. BUT ... let them hang themselves in front of
a judge because that is what matters.

BWLegal boast about the number of claims they put through
the courts and maybe they have success into scaring people
who owe debts like loans but in the parking scam, they are a
failiure and are stupid enough to involve themselves in the
parking scam. The number of threads on Google about
BWLegal is awesome and in the end can only lead to their
demise

We hope that the new government bill will restrict legals
who involve themselves in the parking scam

Coupon-mad

Looks good though. Better than the template ones people kept copying.

This should be moved down to a new paragraph to break up the wall of text:

You appear to have ignored...

Coupon-mad

Are you reading the other PPS/BW Legal threads and copying what they are doing (where relevant)?

We can't really do this ten times over for all the PPS defendants.

Three more now:

earth_moon626

Cawills2018

elithia

Do bookmark ALL of them - I've been giving all of the 'PPS defence group' all the usernames. I did tell all of you, swap pm's and look at each other's threads and defences, you can all support and help each other so we don't have to reply again and again on all ten or so threads (that are all the same!).

We will help of course but we hope you will all look at all ten or so threads first, regularly.

SingStar101

Hi

I've not had a reply from BW legal but have now had a letter from the County Court Business Centre saying that i have failed to reply to their letter. I didn't reply as i was pursuing the matter with BW legal, whom have continually ignored my correspondence. However, the court notice was sent to the wrong address in any case.

They (County Court Business Centre) have told me on the phone that the amount has been applied as a CCJ as i didn't respond. They said i have a month to pay, and that i could appeal, on the basis that the letter went to the wrong address - which is the case.

They have said that an appeal will take 6 weeks and therefore i will go past the month deadline to pay and therefore the CCJ will be on my record with the usual 6 year impact. Clearly the appeal period is designed to be in favour of the courts. I explained that i thought that i would be invited to court before any decision was made - apparently that is not the case.

They said i could appeal as the letter was sent to the wrong address but in order to do this i need to pay an admin fee of £255 which is almost the equivalent of the alleged debt.l.

I fear i've compromised my position by replying to BW legal and not the "court".

If the outcome of this is that i need to pay, i guess i'll have to suck it up, but as always advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

SS