Letter of Claim from BW Legal / Norwich Traffic Control

slash1551

Hi All,

Long time lurker of this forum, PePiPoo and the Parking Prankster which all hold valuable and similar scenario's to mine. What I'm seeking here is confirmation of my actions now I'm moving towards to court action. I am not worried about going to court and similarly counter-claiming for data breaches.

Scenario: PCN received for "Unauthorised parking" in January 2018. The space in question is leased via an Estate Agent acting on behalf of the landowner. My contract mentions no need to display a permit, nor states the terms can be varied. My contract was also in place before Norwich Traffic Control began enforcing the spaces. I was supplied with a permit once NTC began enforcement which has since expired (can argue this was displayed out of courtesy). The signage is forbidding (Permit Holders Only), so in my mind this can only be a matter of trespass for non-permit holders and only the landowner can bring a claim for that.

To date I have ignored and kept all correspondence from NTC, DCBL and BW Legal. Now that I have received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal, I believe now is the time to respond using a defence template similar to the one written by Johnersh (I cannot link but it is in the NEWBIES thread for an 'own space' residential site defence). The Letter of Claim is identical to most that are already on this forum, so it fails the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

Any more info you guys need from me? Am I correct in thinking that a response is now required?

Cheers.

Umkomaas

Unless it has come from the CCBC at Northampton County Court Admin Centre, then you're not at the 'defence' stage.

You seem to have the BWL version of a LBC - so have a look at the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 where there is a specimen response to a LBC - but it is a bit elderly now, and advice emerging lately is to construct your own after researching more recent LBC rebuttals.

HTH

slash1551

Something like the below? And can this be sent via email or registered post?

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your Letter of Claim.

Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide photographic evidence. It does not even say what the cause of action is. 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.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction.

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. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

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.

Yours faithfully,
Slash1551

Coupon-mad

The Letter of Claim is identical to most that are already on this forum, so it fails the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

Does it?

Don't use an ancient 2017 template to reply to a LBC, asking for stuff that you don't even want. I've said this on so many LBC threads, it's easier to suggest please search the forum for posts about LBC response and read some recent ones from here where people have written a more simple reply, sending a SAR to the parking firm as well, etc.

In general, I find pepipoo still favour templates, but we don't.

Especially not that old chestnut (it was good in 2017 when the new PAP came in, not now).

slash1551

Does it?

I think so, but I have typed it out below in it's entirety for people to see.

LETTER OF CLAIM
Our Client: Norwich Traffic Control Limited
Date of Contravention: REDACTED
Account Number: Balance Due: £160.00
Vehicle Registration: REDACTED
Contravention Description: Unauthorised parking
Contravention Location: REDACTED

We have been instructed by Norwich Traffic Control Limited to commence legal action in the form of issuing a Claim against you in the County Court in respect of the above debt. If payment or a response is not received before 4 December 2018, we are instructed to issue a Claim against you in the County Court without further notice. If you dispute this debt, please tell us why so that we can help resolve this matter.

Estimated Claim
Such legal action may result in you being liable for court fees, solicitors’ costs and statutory interest which are estimated below.

Enclosures
Enclosed with this letter are:
- Information Sheet: a sheet explaining what to do next, including how to avoid Court action.
- Reply form: a form to complete and return containing four sections.
- Income and Expenditure Form: a form to complete and return to outline your financial circumstances.

Principal Debt + Initial Legal Costs £160.00
Estimated Interest £6.09
Estimated Court Fees £25.00
Estimated Solicitors’ Costs £50.00
Estimated Total £241.09

What You Need To Do Now
Payment of £160.00 or your reasons for non payment are required by 4 December 2018 to avoid the above legal action. If you are unable to pay the Balance in full, Our Client is willing to enter into a payment arrangement which is affordable for you taking into account your financial circumstances.

How to Get In Touch
- Online: Manage your account at (website). You can complete the Reply Form and your income and expenditure online, make a payment, set up an affordable payment arrangement and speak to us by webchat.
- Speak to us or email us: Call us today on 0113 323 4479 or email us at (email) to discuss this matter with one of our helpful team.
- By post: Complete and return the attached Reply Form to us at the address at the foot of this letter by 4 December 2018.

Statement of Account
The following summary statement shows the transactions applied to your account since the PCN was issued by Our Client:
Principal Balance £100.00
Total Payments £0.00
Total Adjustments £0.00
Total Interest £0.00
Total Debt Recovery Costs £60.00
Curremt Balance £160.00

Our Client’s entitlement to the total Debt Recovery Costs referred to in the table above is expressed in the Terms and Conditions, which you accepted upon entering the Site. Such costs are recoverable in any event under the relevant Parking Code(s) of Practice.

Warning of Court Proceedings
If payment or a response is not received from you by 4 December 2018 we are instructed to issue a County Court Claim without further reference to you, together with applying the interest, fees and costs highlighted on the previous page.

If payment or a response is not received following a County Court Claim, a County Court Judgment (“CCJ”) may be entered against you. If a CCJ were to be entered, it would be recorded on your credit file for 6 years unless you pay the Judgment debt in full within a month of the CCJ being entered. A CCJ on your credit file may affect your ability to obtain future credit.

If a CCJ were to be entered and you were to fail to comply with the CCJ order, we may apply to the County Court to take further enforcement action which you would be notified of separately.

We Look Forward To Hearing From You
Our helpful team would like to work with you to reach a solution without the need for Court proceedings to be issued and it is therefore important that you get in touch before 4 December 2018.
Yours faithfully
BW Legal

Don't use an ancient 2017 template to reply to a LBC, asking for stuff that you don't even want. I've said this on so many LBC threads, it's easier to suggest please search the forum for posts about LBC response and read some recent ones from here where people have written a more simple reply, sending a SAR to the parking firm as well, etc.

In general, I find pepipoo still favour templates, but we don't.

Especially not that old chestnut (it was good in 2017 when the new PAP came in, not now).

I'll take a look now using that search term to try and get a response more relevant and concise.

Thanks both Umkomaas & Coupon-mad for your help so far.

The_Deep

£241 is tantamount to fraud imo, a lot more than the law allows. The solicitors know this but hope to sucker you into paying.

Even if they won their claim in court, which is unlikely, the most a judge is likely to award would be £175 - £200, the rest is think of a number money.

I suggest that you complain to the regulatory body, the SRA about this demand for unlawful costs.

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

Also, complain to your MP

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business in the not too distant future.

beamerguy

"Our Client’s entitlement to the total Debt Recovery Costs referred to in the table above is expressed in the Terms and Conditions, which you accepted upon entering the Site. Such costs are recoverable in any event under the relevant Parking Code(s) of Practice."

Do you have pictures of the signs clearly showing the T&C's and clearly showing "debt recovery costs" of £60

slash1551

Do you have pictures of the signs clearly showing the T&C's and clearly showing "debt recovery costs" of £60

I do have a picture of the signage. The only statement it makes to additional costs is: "Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the parking charge and for which you will be liable for on a indemnity basis."

I'm also struggling to find any response to the LBC that are much different to what I posted earlier in this thread. Sorry, is anyone able to link to something direct?

beamerguy

slash1551 wrote: »

I do have a picture of the signage. The only statement it makes to additional costs is: "Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the parking charge and for which you will be liable for on a indemnity basis."

The point is, the entry sign which is where a contract is formed.

Are the T&C's easy to read upon entry or would you have to stop the car to read them

slash1551

The point is, the entry sign which is where a contract is formed.

Are the T&C's easy to read upon entry or would you have to stop the car to read them

It's not your typical car park; it's four spaces in front of an old, disused car garage off a backstreet. The signs are on bay 1 and bay 3 (I park in bay 2). I can't post a link but you can search Google Maps for "52.626603, 1.299022" you will see a pink building with 2 yellow NTC signs fixed to the outside (there is also a red Mini and a trailer for the avoidance of doubt on viewing the correct the building).

beamerguy

slash1551 wrote: »

It's not your typical car park; it's four spaces in front of an old, disused car garage off a backstreet. The signs are on bay 1 and bay 3 (I park in bay 2). I can't post a link but you can search Google Maps for "52.626603, 1.299022" you will see a pink building with 2 yellow NTC signs fixed to the outside (there is also a red Mini and a trailer for the avoidance of doubt on viewing the correct the building).

I can see the sign, left of the red mini on the wall.

Is that really a BPA approved sign ??