BW Legal "Letter Of Claim" Received

GeoStar1

Thanks for the suggestion Umkomaas. I will follow this up.

GeoStar1

I have heard back from BW Legal regarding my request to put the case 'on hold' while I await the SAR response from Countrywide Parking:


"Information about the right to restrict processing is available on the Information Commissioner's Office website www.ico.org.uk The rights to restrict processing only applies in certain limited circumstances. We are not of the view that the right to restrict processing is applicable in this case. Your data is processed for the lawful purposes set out in the Privacy Notice, a copy of which is enclosed and available on www.bwlegal.co.uk. Whilst we acknowledge you have made a request for information with Our Client it is important to note that this does not affect the validity of Our Client's Claim meaning that Our Client has an overriding legitimate interest to recover the sums due to them.


As such, your account will not be suspended from further collections activity unless we are instructed to do so by Our Client. Please contact us to reach a suitable resolution.


We trust this is satisfactory and clarifies Our Position. Should you be dissatisfied with our response you may raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office."


Please can you advise me of any further action/response I should take?


For info, I have not yet had a response from Countrywide Parking Management Limited regarding my SAR email request sent on 27th November.


Many thanks in advance.

The_Deep

It costs about the same price as a skinny latte with sprinkles at St. Arbucks.

GeoStar1

Thanks "The Deep", I now have the landowner details and trying to get in touch with them by letter.


Any thoughts on post #23 anyone please?

tango_whiskey

I have been receiving letters from Parking Patrol Office and their legal representatives for some time, following a letter from PPO in mid-2017 for a parking charge notice for a car which I owned which was visiting Newcastle airport. The pictures they sent me show a car at the entrance to a roundabout with what looks like the driver disembarking. The claim was for a breach of the byelaws at 1315 - Roads surrounding Newcastle Airport, Woolsington. The letter says PPO issued the charge pursuant to the Newcastle International Airport Byelaws 2009.

Following my denial of any debt to PPO they sent a string of letters from Debt Recovery Plus, Zenith Collections, Gladstones Solicitors and most recently from BW legal, who have sent me a letter of claim. I responded with the following rebuttal:

I am in receipt of your Letter of Claim of 5th November 2018.

Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

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 lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 6 and 7) 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.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind 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. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

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

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 vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1; establishing yourself as the creditor;
8. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed0
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added

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 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

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.


I have just returned from a business trip to find the following response from BW legal:

Our Client: UK Parking Patrol Office Limited
Account number: xxxxxxx
Balance £160.00 ("the Balance")

We write in reference to the above matter and your recent correspondence.

• Our Client's cause of action is that you breached the terms and conditions of the contract which you entered into by parking your vehicle in a prohibited area.

• Our client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

• Our client does not intend to reply on Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

• The details of the claim are that your vehicle parked in a prohibited area.

• The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) which you have been issued with is for a breach of contract. The only right which you have to enter the land in question are on the terms and conditions which apply. It is unnecessary to apply an analysis of offer, acceptance and consideration quite simply because the contract was formed on mutual promises. By parking your vehicle in the car park you have entered into a unilateral contract with Our Client. Acceptance does not have to be communicated, the act of parking your vehicle is acceptance.

• This is not a claim for trespass.

• 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.

• Our client is under no obligation to provide this.

• As established members of the Independent Parking Committee, Our Client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks (‘Code of Practice’). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the car park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.

• £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.

Accordingly, the full balance is Due.

Please contact us within 14 days of this letter on 0113 487 0432 to discuss repayment.

Yours sincerely
BW Legal

Apart from the fact that they have refused to supply all the information I asked for, their letter keeps referring to a car park, despite the fact that the vehicle is clearly stopped whilst entering a roundabout. Their photographs are actually titled ‘C33 Roundabout’.

I’m not sure how legally relevant the distinction is but it seems odd that they are chasing me for something that they allege happened in a car park, as I would not have though that such a description applied to a road. I also cannot find any reference in the Newcastle International Byelaws 2009 that suggests that a road is a car park as their own definition of ‘Airport car parks’ says this “means together the Short Stay Car Park, the Short Stay Fast Track Car Park, the Long Stay Car Park, the Pick Up and Drop Off Car park, the south side parking and the Park and Fly Offsite car Park.” Further, it does not seem possible to presume that any pick up and drop off area can be regarded as a ‘car par’ when the Byelaws clearly define ‘Pick up/Drop off areas’ as “the areas designated from time to time for the picking up and dropping off of passengers”, which the roads and roundabouts are clearly not examples of. Finally, can a brief stop to disembark be considered as ‘parking’?

Notwithstanding that, how should I respond to the BW Legal letter? I have seen some posts that suggest that I should send a SAR. Is that the best response at this stage, or should I respond to BW Legal’s refusal to supply the information I asked for and, if so, what it the best approach to that?

Many thanks in advance for any advice you can supply about how to deal with these people.

GeoStar1

Hi Tango Whiskey, please can you remove the above post and create a new thread for your own case and hopefully someone will respond to you.

Best wishes.

GeoStar1

Any thoughts on post #23 above anyone please?

Many thanks.

Umkomaas

GeoStar1 wrote: »

Any thoughts on post #23 above anyone please?

Many thanks.

There's only two logical answers:

1. Shrug your shoulders and let them get on with it

2. Make a complaint to the ICO about their refusal to put a hold on proceedings, arguing that as the Limitation Act provides them with 6 years to progress this through the courts, a temporary halt in proceedings does not handicap them.

GeoStar1

Thanks Umkomaas for your summary - I will complain to the ICO.

It has been 1 calendar month since my SAR to Countrywide. I have not had any response to date. When should I chase this up? and by email again?

Many thanks and Happy New Year!

Redx

I would wait until its 6 to 8 weeks, then complain to their DPO again, copying in the original SAR, plus complain to the ICO about the 30 day failure (especially due to xmas and new year holidays etc)


ie:- dont give them any wiggle room