Received a BW Legal: Letter of Claim

washerupper

Hi all,

HELP!

I received a PCN over a year ago from Britannia Parking Limited and followed the advice then (from BMPA to file and forget as I never actually received a Notice to Keeper and I wasn't the driver anyway), which was to ignore it and it will go away. Also the original PCN was sent months after the alleged incident.

This week I received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal and I've been going through the newbie advice and been left a little confused, so I then followed a thread that looked similar and I intend to send the same letter to BW as the lady there did.

I'm assuming that I should be sending the letter directly to BW Legal and not Britannia (the newbie advice says to send it to the contact details on Britannia's privacy policy - which is very short and doesn't mention SARs!).

I would like to know if you think this is adequate and the correct course of action. Thank you all in advance of any help.
(The only part of the letter I am unsure of is the numbers stated after the cases, is this relating to a reference section with these printed out, that was sent with the letter?)

The letter:

Thank you for your letter of ....

You have sent a Letter of Claim. However, your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide the 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.
Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter clearly breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.
Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction.
Your letter also states that an income/expenditure form requires completing. This is totally misleading, as it only relates to anyone who admits the debt.
I am fully aware that BW Legal were 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary debate in February, where MPs unanimously clamoured to expose rogue parking firms and their 'cosy relationship' with firms like BW Legal making a mint from their clients' rogue ticketing and unfair fining. !!! "Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines and aggressive demands for payment have no place in the 21st century and companies like yourself are an absolute disgrace.!!!"
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) !!!8211; 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 Sincerely,

Coupon-mad

This week I received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal and I've been going through the newbie advice and been left a little confused, so I then followed a thread that looked similar and I intend to send the same letter to BW as the lady there did.

I wouldn't. Our advice (NEWBIES thread section about LBCs) has changed, to concentrate more on the SAR to the parking firm.

I'm assuming that I should be sending the letter directly to BW Legal and not Britannia (the newbie advice says to send it to the contact details on Britannia's privacy policy - which is very short and doesn't mention SARs!).

The NEWBIES thread is correct.

Britannia's privacy page talks about 'data subject access' (i.e. a SAR) and it gives an email addy, so I am not sure what you were expecting!

I would like to know if you think this is adequate and the correct course of action. Thank you all in advance of any help.

No, please do what the NEWBIES thread now says (edited this week to change the advice and remove all those crusty templates that get people nowhere).

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

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. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially 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.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

washerupper

Thank you both for your time and your replies. Below are my intended emails to the respective companies, I hope I followed the advice correctly.

Having read deeper, I'm unsure of what I actually received; the letter I received is entitled "Letter of Claim", asks for payment to them as the debt collector and gives me 30 days to respond - Is this actually (or could be considered) a LBC?

Assuming this doesn't change anything, below is the intended correspondence:

This is my intended post to the parking company:

Dear Sir or Madam

Subject Access Request (Data Protection Act 2018 / General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR))

MY ADDRESS

Please supply me the data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law relating to myself.

I would like-
-all data held.
-all evidence you intend to use against me (to include- a copy of the contract with the landowner under which you assert authority to bring a claim against me, a copy of the alleged contract with the driver, a plan showing where the signs were displayed, details of the signs displayed).
-all letters sent and received (including your correspondence with the DVLA to obtain my personal details).
-a full copy of the parking charge notice.
-ALL photos taken.
-a list of all PCN's you consider are outstanding against me.
-a close up of the signage at PLACE on DATE.
-evidence you have paid a debt collector.
-a PDT machine record from DATE.

If you need any more data from me to confirm my identity please let me know as soon as possible. It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request for data within one calendar month.

If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant staff member. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner's Office can assist you. It's website is ico.org.uk or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113

Yours faithfully

My “please hold e-mail to BW”

Dear Sir or Madam

I am writing to inform you that I have sent your client Britannia Parking Limited a SAR, so I require a restriction of data processing and for the case (xxxxxxx), to be put on hold.

yours faithfully

again, many, many thanks for your advice

Coupon-mad

Having read deeper, I'm unsure of what I actually received; the letter I received is entitled "Letter of Claim", asks for payment to them as the debt collector and gives me 30 days to respond - Is this actually (or could be considered) a LBC?

Nope, but you may as well send a SAR to see the PPC's hand.

Looks fine.

washerupper

Thank you again for your advice.
As this isn't an official LBC, do I still need to send the stop email to bw legal or not correspond with them at this stage?
Also, in the meantime I contacted the retailer of the car park in question, as advised in the newbie post, to ask for their help.
They have replied saying that if I send them the details, circumstances and all correspondence with the parking company they will consider my case.
I am nervous of doing this, as I worry they will pass the information on and it could be used against me if this does go further.
Do you advise pursuing this, what information should I give them?

Many thanks

The_Deep

Has the DCA committed an offence here?

Coupon-mad

Also, in the meantime I contacted the retailer of the car park in question, as advised in the newbie post, to ask for their help.
They have replied saying that if I send them the details, circumstances and all correspondence with the parking company they will consider my case.

Do it, of COURSE! They can cancel! You do not have to say who parked. Say 'we'.

washerupper

Thank you.
As its not a LBC do I still send the 'hold' email to the DCA?

Coupon-mad

No, I would save that to stall them at LBC stage. But hopefully the retailer will cancel it as a gesture of goodwill to their poor customer, as they would for anyone harassed by any useless scam parking firm.

washerupper

No, retailer has come back with 'unable to intervene now it has been passed to bwlegal'. They say I had lots of opportunities to sort this out so are unwilling to intervene.