HELP PLEASE - Do I need to act on a Letter of Claim BW Legal?

bennjiboy

Hi, had a thread open back in 2015 but its now closed.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5383105/ukppo-pcn-through-post

UK Parking Patrol office sent an NTK for parking at Newcastle Airport, it was appealed and rejected under a ridiculous procedure and kangaroo court.

Letter states that UKPPO have instructed bw legal to commence legal action in the form of issuing a claim against in the county court. have until 2 december to respond and if no response then they are instructed to issue a claim against us in the county court without further notice.

payment of £160 required by 2nd december to avoid the above legal action.

Question - is this something i need to reply to or is it just another one for the "file" pile?

Thank you!

System

one for the "file" pile?

If you want to be a bit more pro-active, then send a SAR to UKPPO asking for all your details. If there is no letter or communication to BW about these "instructions" then ask why not. It won't be legally privileged so they should cough it up.

No letter then a complaint to the SRA

bennjiboy

thanks, i will do the SRA.

my worry is, as the letter states "UKPPO have instructed bw legal to commence legal action in the form of issuing a claim against in the county court" does that mean that this is definitely going to court and I need to start preparing a defense?

last thing we need right now is this :-(

beamerguy

bennjiboy wrote: »

thanks, i will do the SRA.

my worry is, as the letter states "UKPPO have instructed bw legal to commence legal action in the form of issuing a claim against in the county court" does that mean that this is definitely going to court and I need to start preparing a defense?

last thing we need right now is this :-(

NOPE, if they do go further they must send you a LBA to which they must prove their claim, costs etc and give you 30 days to respond

Get one of these and come back here. BWLegal constantly make gross errors as they have done here ...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74993447#Comment_74993447

bennjiboy

beamerguy wrote: »

NOPE, if they do go further they must send you a LBA to which they must prove their claim, costs etc and give you 30 days to respond

Get one of these and come back here. BWLegal constantly make gross errors as they have done here ...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74993447#Comment_74993447

thanks, when i was looking at what is a "letter of claim" it seems it is the new term for LBA?
https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/businesses/srvdebt/letter-of-claim-debt-recovery/

sorry for the questions, just want to make sure we dont miss doing something that is required as i wont let these cowboys win :-)

bennjiboy

Hi - after spending the last few hours reading through this helpful forum, i am 99% sure i need to send BW a robust defence letter - i see there are a few version so I will pull one together.

bennjiboy

I would like to know, if i should include the original appeal questions and there amazingly bad responses in red below where they admit they cant see where the car was parked, and that there are no signs in sight of the time of stopping, the operators relationship with the landowner has no bearing on this case etc etc !!!! copy below - appreciate any advice.

1. The signs in the Airport are small, difficult to read, and do not clearly identify where the alleged boundary is relating to the signs. 1. The Appellant provides no evidence of this. I am satisfied, based on the evidence of the Operator that the signs could be read. They do not have to identify the boundary. If the Appellant parks within sight of the sign the terms of the sign apply to where they are parked
2. These sign also state that they will issue a “Penalty Charge Notice”, however on all documentation they have sent states “Parking Charge Notice”. Clearly they have not followed their own rules! 2. This is explained in the Operator’s submission, but does not affect the lawfulness of the charge in any event.
3. The photo of the sign sent by UK Parking Patrol, shows it is managed by UK Parking Patrol Office, however, the payment slip states UK Parking Patrol Office “Ltd”. UK Parking Patrol on their rejection of my appeal, stated the creditor is named clearly as UK Parking Patrol, however expect the payment to go to an entirely different company namely UK Parking Patrol Ltd?? This can clearly be seen on the NTK that they have uploaded, and I have uploaded as well for avoidance of doubt.
4. UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd is a dormant company – A dormant company cannot carry out any kind of trading activity or receive any form of income, how can they then request payment to be made to a dormant company? 3 & 4. This is again answered by the Operator and is again irrelevant to the lawfulness of the charge.
5. They detail the NTK was sent on the 19th December 2015, however, the issued date on the NTK is 21st December? How can they send an NTK before they issue it / issue it after it was sent? Again they have not followed the law in this matter and brings into doubt any credibility they have over the issue of this NTK
5. The Operator admits this is a clerical error; again it does not affect the lawfulness of the charge.
6. The alleged incident of parking occurred in the driveway to the DoubleTree Hotel, not on double red lines, nor on a yellow box junction. There is no evidence to suggest that this is part of the roads covered by the alleged contract with Newcastle Airport, and no signage within that driveway into the hotel which is owned and operated by the hotel. From the position the car is in, there are no signs in clear view of this area from within the vehicle. Despite this, the vehicle did not park for any period, merely stopped for a few seconds. 6. There is no evidence who owns the land. I agree there is no sign in sight of the driver at the time of stopping. However, they have passed other signs to get to this point.
7. There is no evidence to suggest the operator has the authority of the landowner to issue parking charge notices or take court action in their own name to recover them. This is a requirement of the British Parking Association Code of Practice to which the operator must adhere. We demand that the operator discloses a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner to show that they do. Failure to do so must result in this appeal being upheld. 7. The Operator’s relationship with the landowner is has no bearing in this case. The charge is brought through the airport’s bye-laws. Without evidence to show the land is not subject to bye-laws, I cannot allow the appeal on this basis.
8. The attached file named “Hilton” shows that the location is actually has a leasehold tenure by Hilton Hotel, and at no time has UK Parking Patrol Office provided evidence that they have a legal right to issue an NTK. Within the rejection letter submitted by UK Parking Patrol, they claim to include, as attachment 8, the landowner agreement – this has not been uploaded, which is clearly a breach of their rejection as you cannot adjudicate on a rejection without the full and clear details and documents that they have not included. There is also no evidence given that UK Parking Patrol has a legal right to film on Hilton Hotels property.
8. I cannot see on the Appellant’s evidence where they are parked.
9. Road Traffic Laws are in effect on any road the public has access; however UK Parking Patrol claims the Road Traffic Act is not applicable. The airport roads, being publicly accessible, are subject to the road traffic enactments (see the definition of "road" in section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988; the ownership of the road is irrelevant, if it's publicly-accessible then it's subject to all the usual laws of the road). No byelaws are applicable to airport roads where the road traffic enactments apply (see the Airports Act 1986 63(2)(d), and the preamble to Section 6 of the Newcastle Airport byelaws). Furthermore, the Newcastle Airport byelaws as published appear to have been neither signed/sealed by the airport, nor signed off by the Secretary of State. Evidently, then, the byelaws are not effective at all? 9. The RTA does not apply
10. The NTK is issued under bylaw, only a Magistrate can rule on a Bylaw. 10. The Operator has the right to issue the charge.
11. UK Parking Patrol have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA under the auspices of this being in relation to a PARKING incident, 6.3 parking in a prohibited area, however at no point in time did the vehicle park. 11. The definition of the verb I found is “to place or leave a vehicle in a certain location for a period of time.” I am satisfied the vehicle was parked.
12. Upon first appeal UK Parking Patrol offered POPLA as a route of appeal, however they have since refused 3 times to offer POPLA. This is despite evidence to show that the appeal route for UK Parking Patrol would be via POPLA as stated on their company documentation which is attached to this appeal
13. The appeal was put in with the IAS on the 12/1/16 at 1240, giving 5 working days meaning the deadline for the primafacie was the 19/1/16 at 1240 – however the primafacie was not submitted until 19/1/16 at 1647 – this is 4 hours over the given 5 working days therefore should be dismissed as late submission. 13. This has been answered above.
14. The primafacie case starts with the response from “The UK Parking Patrol Office”, ends being signed off by “UK Parking Patrol” and to revert to point 3 they want payment to “UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd” which is a dormant company and cannot receive any form of income???? 12 & 14. Any issues with the correspondence subsequent to the parking charge notice being issued is not relevant to the lawfulness of the charge, and should be raised through the normal complaints procedure.
15. Please find attached original appeal letter, many points raised have been ignored, or not answered in full. These answers, and others raised subsequently, need to be answered in full, with contractual evidence to prove UK Parking Patrol have the legal right in full accordance with all laws and regulations, to issue this NTK
.

The appeal is dismissed.

Coupon-mad

I would like to know, if i should include the original appeal questions and there amazingly bad responses in red below where they admit they cant see where the car was parked, and that there are no signs in sight of the time of stopping, the operators relationship with the landowner has no bearing on this case etc etc !!!! copy below - appreciate any advice.

Include it in what? Not in the SAR IamEmanresu advised:

IamEmanresu wrote: »

one for the "file" pile?

If you want to be a bit more pro-active, then send a SAR to UKPPO asking for all your details. If there is no letter or communication to BW about these "instructions" then ask why not. It won't be legally privileged so they should cough it up.

No letter then a complaint to the SRA

bennjiboy

Hi Coupon-mad thanks for your reply.

I have sent SAR to UKPP, DRP, Zenith and BW Legal, will update if anythhing comes back.

My concern here is do i need to send a letter back to BW on the basis they have sent this Letter of Claim, or do I wait for actual court papers to be sent through?

Thanks in advance as I want to play this correctly.

Quentin

The newbies faq thread (#2 there) should be your "bible" now a court hearing is looming


That post covers the court process and how to deal with each stage right through from receipt of the LBCCA to the hearing


Your specific question is answered there

bennjiboy

thanks Quentin - this is the confirmation i needed that this is going to court and will go through the thread you mention .. thanks again..