DW Legal PCN - do I respond again now?

Coupon-mad

OK, and visibly cc-ing in the landowner is VITAL. Let the PPC see their client is a cc recipient.

Macca7

Please can you have a look at this for me guys before I send it off...


BW Legal,

I have now received your letter dated **/10/18. Sadly, you have completely ignored the information about the car being stopped in the interest of safety to the driver and other road users. This is despite me again explaining that £871.79 of repair costs were subsequently found on that day (for which I previously provided evidence to your client, and include for you again today). You have also ignored what I had explained to you in regards to the detrimental impact that this harassment has had upon my health; with further calls made to my mobile telephone whilst I am at work. This harassment has been recorded and will be used in my counterclaim against your client and the landowner.

In your letter you state “…The details of the claim are that your vehicle parked without displaying a valid PDT”. I now require further details in relation to this new information. The car was not “parked” and this has never been claimed in any previous correspondence from you or your client; as you know, it was brought to a stop for 34 seconds (according to your photos) to assess the safety to drive on, after a mechanical fault was detected by the driver. Please provide a copy of the contract into which the driver purportedly entered with your client. In addition to this, please also provide details of precisely how, where and when the driver became aware of the purported contract and accepted your client's alleged offer of “parking” for which a “valid PDT” could be “displayed”.

In relation to the previous point, and in reference to bullet point 9 of your letter, you also refer to the signage within the “Car Park”. Please can you clarify the location that this charge relates to again? As the registered keeper I was informed that this relates to briefly stopping (34 seconds) at the side of a road on an industrial estate. A “car park” was never entered and has never been referred to until this letter from you. Is this an error in your letter dated 22/10/18, or are you pursuing a claim from a different location to that stated in the original PCN?

If the location of the claim is in fact the industrial estate which I was initially informed about by your client, then the signage attached to lampposts on that road is another point upon which I will provide my defence in court. Please provide information of the height in mm of the writing on each line of the sign and the number of words in each size on the signage. Please note that this obviously should only be any signs that you claim would have been seen at the exact point at which the car was claim to have stopped/”parked”. I am aware that other motorists have found that signage provided by your client contains 62 words (excluding the small print at the bottom of the sign and the text contained within the graphics on the sign). According to the Department of Transport guidelines, it would take the driver 23 seconds to read these words (and even longer to read the small print). In a vehicle travelling at 30 mph, this is clearly impossible. PLEASE REMEMBER WHY THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED.

If your client decides to pursue the claim against me then please provide a response to the points raised above. Please also inform your client that if they proceed to court in the full knowledge that the vehicle had a major mechanical fault, and was only briefly stopped to assess the safety to drive to the nearest garage, I WILL proceed with a counter claim of £500 for distress caused by data misuse under the DPA and GDPR, and/or the Protection from Harassment Act. I will include your client and the landowner in this claim. Please confirm the name and address of the owner of the land upon which your client now claims the vehicle was “parked” and evidence of ownership of the land by that person.


Yours sincerely

****
Copy to:
Peel Business Parks
Peel Dome,
intu Trafford Centre,
TRAFFORDCITY,
Manchester M17 8PL

The_Deep

Just received a response from BW Legal and another telephone call (voicemail) today despite me explaining in my letter how distressing

Have you made a complaint against them to their regulatory body the SRA?

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

Macca7

Not yet The Deep. I'll definitely do that now though! Many thanks.

Macca7

Latest from BWLegal....


"...We write in reference to the above matter and your recent correspondence.


Our Client rejected your appeal and sent you an appeal rejection letter. This letter outlined reasons for the rejection and detailed how you should proceed if you wished to appeal this matter further. This must have been done within a set timeframe, specified in the aforementioned letter.


As no further appeal was forthcoming, your recourse for appeal has now expired and the full balance is due and owing.


Accordingly, the full Balance is Due. Please contact us within 14 days of the date of this letter on 0113 323 4485 to discuss repayment.


Yours Sincerely


BWQ Legal".


*They've the attached the original rejection of my appeal*.


It's a 2/10, "must try harder" for me. They've not answered a single question that I posed to them and just seem determined for me to let this "14 days" deadline expire, to enable them to them to proceed. I thought we were getting serious at the Letter Before Claim point.


To be honest, I'm happy to play this game for a good while longer yet. I'd add any admin time and postage costs to the counterclaim against them. I've had a very supportive letter from my MP which she has sent to Vehicle Control Services. She is going to be in touch with any reply they send to her. Thinking I'll refer to that, point out that they haven't answered any of the questions that I posed in my last letter and resend a copy to them, to help them to do so. I'll copy the landowner etc. in again and resend a copy of the quote for the repair.


Any thoughts on that guys?

nosferatu1001

Respond back, noting they have failed to engage in the PAP for debt claims as they have failed, entirely, to repsond to the reaosnable points of disagrement and further informaiton you require. You are surprised to recieve such an obvious template response .

You are keeping a careful note of your own costs at the LIP rate of £19 per hour, and will hold them and their client liable for them on the indemnity basis should they be foolish enough to proceed with such an obviously vexatious and harassing claim.

Macca7

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Respond back, noting they have failed to engage in the PAP for debt claims as they have failed, entirely, to repsond to the reaosnable points of disagrement and further informaiton you require. You are surprised to recieve such an obvious template response .

You are keeping a careful note of your own costs at the LIP rate of £19 per hour, and will hold them and their client liable for them on the indemnity basis should they be foolish enough to proceed with such an obviously vexatious and harassing claim.

Thank you so much for that. That's really helped with my reply. I'll put something together this afternoon.

Macca7

Just had a further letter (before I could send my response) this time from VCS, saying that following communication with the landowner they want me to pay £30 "final settlement" within 14 days.

beamerguy

Macca7 wrote: »

Just had a further letter (before I could send my response) this time from VCS, saying that following communication with the landowner they want me to pay £30 "final settlement" within 14 days.

Is that right ??? more like the landowner has told them to cancel and in true form VCS are still trying to extort money from you

You are liberty to ask them, or let a court ask them, what was the communication with the landowner ???

Stick to your guns, you were scammed in the first place and they are still trying to scam you