BW Legal Letter

beamerguy

As Keith says.and Coupon-mad

If you have told BWLegal, that is just sheer incompetence on their part.

First things first, you must get confirmation in writing, even if you have to phone them 30 days a time ..... just as they do

You are correct about not giving any further information

As they coc*ed that one up, make certain they have provided you with proof of their claim.

And if they have added that FAKE £60, you need a full explanation of this amount

The income forms etc is none of their business and no need to fill them in.

onlyfoolsandparking

beamerguy wrote: »

As Keith says.and Coupon-mad

If you have told BWLegal, that is just sheer incompetence on their part.

First things first, you must get confirmation in writing, even if you have to phone them 30 days a time ..... just as they do

You are correct about not giving any further information

As they coc*ed that one up, make certain they have provided you with proof of their claim.

And if they have added that FAKE £60, you need a full explanation of this amount

The income forms etc is none of their business and no need to fill them in.

So ring them about once a month:rotfl:(only joking friend:D)

ts6789

What does a CPR stand for?

I have prepared the following response. Do I need to ask for anything else? The claim is regarding one PCN, for not displaying a valid permit.

Dear Sirs,

My address for service is..... I do not need to provide you with evidence of this address so please can you update your records and remove my old data immediately.

Your letter before claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide the photographic evidence, or notify the cause of action Nor does it contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.

This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds 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.

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 car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.
8. a copy of the letters issued regarding this PCN

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

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.

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.

Copy of the Letter Before Claim below:

hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1Iihb9k1YQHFimQs-TRuBOHkiWUPgiCtN/view?usp=sharing

hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1FnFs9eXZsab89tIh-_FIKMC_tGWuBBlF/view?usp=sharing

The_Deep

The HA responded saying that they will not be able to assist with appealing any PCNs. They seem to think Countrywide Parking have a legitimate basis to issue this PCN.

If they are a registered charity, (most of them are) complain to the Charity Commissioners that they are I bed with scammers .

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/charity-commission

How much are BWL asking for? If it is more than £200 they may be asking for more than the law allows. This, imo is fraudulent and they should be reported
to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/charity-commission

KeithP

ts6789 wrote: »

What does a CPR stand for?

CPRs = Civil Procedure Rules

I find google good for that sort of thing.

beamerguy

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Iihb9k1YQHFimQs-TRuBOHkiWUPgiCtN/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FnFs9eXZsab89tIh-_FIKMC_tGWuBBlF/view

BWLegal do come out with such rubbish

"We have been instructed by CPM and Trace Debt recovery"

There can only be one claimant and that is CPM

You need to ask who actually is the claimant here ???

They say that £60 is added legal costs of their clients yet further on they say it is debt recovery costs

They say that such costs are shown on the signs. Wonder what they say .....is it legal costs or debt recovery costs ??? And if it does show this, how visible is this to form a contract.

BWLegal as usual are trying to scam you. I wonder who writes this rubbish,

ts6789

Thank you BeamerGuy. I will add this questions to my response. Is it best to respond closer to their deadline (i.e. 6 December) or as soon as possible?

ts6789

Hi,

I received the following response from BW legal on 7th January and I'm not sure how to respond. How much time do I have to respond to this before they are allowed to take this to court?

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.
- Our Client does intend to reply on Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

- The details of the claim are that your vehicle parked without displaying a valid Permit to park.
The £100.00 charge is regarded as a charge for contravening the Terms and Conditions. The sum payable following the issue of the PCN occurs on the happening of a specific event (i.e. a material breach of the Terms and Conditions) and is therefore a core term of Our Client's contract with you.

It is irrelevant whether or not the charge as displayed bears any relation to the cost for parking (even where there is no cost involved). Our Client relies on the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that PCN charges, like this charge, serve a legitimate commercial interest. The relevant car parking Codes of Practice, also give guidance that £100.00 is a reasonable sum to charge.

The signage in situ makes provision for Our Client to recover any additional costs (Contractual Costs) incurred by them in relation to the PCN. The Contractual Costs referred to above formed part of the Terms and Conditions (of the parking contract) which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the car park. Save for the fact that the sum of £60.00 attributable towards these costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charge, such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.


- The signage situated across the Car Park forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park their vehicle at the location. As the offer is a unilateral one, there is no need for the motorist to communicate their acceptance; the performance of parking in accordance with the terms and conditions is the act of acceptance. The signs are prominent and the terms and conditions are clearly displayed, and the motorist would have had the opportunity to read and understand them on parking at the Car Park. An objective observer would consider this action to have been done in acceptance of the terms and conditions.

- 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 to court, the contract will be adduced as evidence.

- £100.00 remains unpaid for the Parking Charge Notice. Additionally, you are also liable for our £60.00 instructions fee as your file has been passed to us.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact our office on 0113 487 0432.

KeithP

ts6789 wrote: »

I received the following response from BW legal on 7th January and I'm not sure how to respond.

File it and wait patiently for a Claim Form to drop through your letter-box.

beamerguy

ts6789

It seems that talking to BWLegal is like talking to a brick wall.

Our Client relies on the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis

We all know that this case revolved around "the fairness of the charge" and NOTHING ELSE.
It has no bearing on your case whatsover, what an odd thing to rely upon ???

BWLegal are at it again ....... THE £60

Contractual Costs .... the sum of £60.00 attributable towards these costs

And further down they say .....
Additionally, you are also liable for our £60.00 instructions fee as your file has been passed to us.


NOTE that as they say "additionally" ... that would indicate there are two £60

This flawed letter is highly misleading
One to certainly show a judge.

Do the signs actually say "Contractual costs = £60 ???

As said, wait for a LBC and see what they say next, it might be an admin fee of £60 next time ???

It's all to do with ....
BWLEGAL ADD ON A FAKE £60 ?
In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. >>>> thanks to bargepole