Small Claim Now Issued - bwlegal - letter of claim, reply then response, next steps

Coupon-mad

Why not read the other Napier one and look for the same things the other poster has been directed to. 

He/she has just worked on their WS.    Read other threads and it makes our life easier as well as yours!

Does the covering letter really use the phrase "ask the court to award their client a CCJ''?

Coupon-mad

Also,  I am Glad you come back in time for this!

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have yet, and time is running out.

A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER - NB: this will take an hour or more to go through each section, and to do BOTH consultations:

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

Please complete comment on all sections if you have a view, remembering the vision of the Knight Act is to end extortionate parking charges.  If you agree with us, the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters and MUST GO, along with the robo-claim legal firms. 

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

Responses into the PAS 232 and MHCLG framework documents are not completely straightforward:

On the MHCLG response, you have to answer the questions on a 1-5 scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then put some commentary. No way to upload documents or alternatives.

 On the PAS 232, you have to click on each clause and sub-clause to put your comments, and a suggested rewording of their draft.  You can see comments which other people have written! 

 But, when you click ‘submit’, a message pops up to say your comments have been received, but that only applies to the particular clause you have just addressed.

You have to click ‘submit’ separately for each individual clause response.

Some people will be caught out by this but can revisit it and add further responses up to 12 October.

 

Things to think about:

A Speeding fine is £100.  A Local Authority lower rate parking penalty is £50.  Which do you think a private PCN should be like?

Do you think they should be allowed to double the costs of the letters by adding a fake debt recovery sum?

Do you think the section about loading/unloading or boarding alighting (e.g. delivery drivers, taxis, or anyone dropping people off) is right and should such short activity be exempt, as we think it should?

Does the section about 'consideration periods' at the start give people long enough?  Why is it that the time starts from when you drive past a remote camera hidden a quarter of a mile away on an approach road...which means five or even ten (or more, in busy times) minutes has gone by before a person is even standing at a pay machine...? 

How can they be allowed to charge for 'total stay' yet not tell you what that time is or when is starts, until you get a PC (too late)?

How can they get away with broken PDT machines and badly-signalled apps, that take longer to pay than 10 mins?

How can they get away with telling people in their own homes who DO NOT need to display a permit (under their leases), that they suddenly do need to display a permit, just by putting up some cardboard signs attached with parcel twine?

etc. etc.

 

Umkomaas

They still seem rather keen to resolve this matter "amicably".

Simply done. Pay them what they want. A perfectly amicable solution for them, I'm sure!

samboella

Have been looking at threads.  Have been using this one for guidance about constructing the WS and exhibits.  Will look for the Napier one shortly.
I did see the details about the consultation you mention this evening but haven't yet had a chance to look through it becuase I've been working on my evidence.  I will make sure to have a look before the deadline.
And yes, they said exactly as I quoted:

 
Are you surprised by their statement?

Coupon-mad

No, this is typical.  It frightens people because what they don't say, is that if you lose you'd simply pay and have no CCJ.

samboella

I figured that was the case so chose to ignore the threat.
Yes, Umkomass I'm sure their amicable roughly translates to 'their way or no way'.

Umkomaas

samboella said:

I figured that was the case so chose to ignore the threat.
Yes, Umkomass I'm sure their amicable roughly translates to 'their way or no way'.

In one. On the nail. 😊

samboella

Hi all.  I had a brief email discussion with Mr Nolan-Bowles requesting further information about which law grants them permission to add an additional £60 to the parking charge.

I didn't get much back apart from the following:

"Our Client is not relying upon legislation as the legal basis for their pursuit of debt recovery costs – it is our client’s position that this is permissible and recoverable on a contractual basis. I am not in a position to provide you with any legal advice regarding this, and would recommend that you seek independent advice if you are not clear about this.  

 

The legitimacy of these costs is outlined at the aforementioned paragraphs within the witness statement. The reason for reference to the paragraphs of the witness statement is due to these providing a concise explanation for the basis upon which these sums are claimed, and a background as to their recoverability."

I have spent hours and days working on my Witness Statement and my head is swimming!  I've done my best so far but would really appreciate some feedback if anyone has the time to look through it.

[LINK REMOVED]

I've used the template WS linked in the newbies thread and tried to adapt that to my own situation but there are a couple of points I'm not clear on.  I've also referred to some other Napier cases to help me formulate the WS.

Point 12 - doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.  I feel like a preceding sentence, paragraph or some reference is missing.  Is this correct?
Point 13 - I think this is more relevant to the case for the person who provided the WS.  Can I still use parts of it, i.e. re-word it, for my case?  If so, can anyone provide a suggestion on how to reword it?

Costs - I'm not sure I have this right as the court case is a telephone hearing (I will read the post about telephone hearings tonight).

I'm hoping I'm not completely off the mark with this WS.  There's so much information to get your head around that it can become rather confusing. 
 
Thanks again.

Timeouts

"Our Client is not relying upon legislation as the legal basis for their pursuit of debt recovery costs – it is our client’s position that this is permissible and recoverable on a contractual basis. I am not in a position to provide you with any legal advice regarding this, and would recommend that you seek independent advice if you are not clear about this".  

Have they lost the plot ??   This is nothing about legislation,  According to the above, it is their client who thinks the added charge is permissible. The client forgetting of course about POFA2012 and the Supreme court ruling.
The client clearly does not understand that this is a feeble attempt to mislead the court and is also a feeble attempt of Double Recovery which in turn is Abuse of Process. It is also a feeble attempt to mislead the motorist and the court that a code of practice allows them to add unlawful amounts and the CoP is NOT a contract for the motorist .
Losing the plot in this way can only result in a bad result for BWLegal who have yet to explain to anyone and the courts what is their legal authority 

Did the debt collector invoice the PPC ?
Did the PPC pay the debt collector ?? 
Can they prove this to the court ? ..... OR, is their claim un-reliable

FOOTNOTE:
Both the debt collector and PPC should be warned by their legal that any false accounting is a criminal offence. Especially as back in 2018, debt collectors offered a "no win, no fee" service

 

Le_Kirk

It was very crowded, making it difficult to identify the single small parking sign located onto the near side of the vehicle. 

You have previously said you had not seen any signs and yet here you say it was difficult to see the single small parking sign.  I think it would be better to say that "upon receipt of the PCN, I visited the location at another time for the purposes of research and noted that it was difficult to identify the single small parking sign".  You could use this approach whenever you talk about signs later in your WS.