2 separate letters from BW Legal - Britannia Parking

mixMZ

I just received a replay from BWLegal to my Questions I sent to them with holding letter:

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 !!!8220;establishing

yourself as the creditor!!!8221;
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

Answers from BWL:

Please find attached photographic evidence of the contravention and our response to your questions below:



1. 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 the car park, by failing to display a valid Pay

& Display Ticket (PDT).
2. Our Client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
3. Our Client does intend to rely on Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
4. The details of the claim are that your vehicle parked without displaying a valid PDT.
The £70.00 charge is regarded as a charge for contravening the Terms and Conditions. The sum payable following the issue of the PCN occurs on the happening of a specific event (i.e. a material

breach of the Terms and Conditions) and is therefore a core term of Our Client's contract with you.
It is irrelevant whether or not the charge as displayed bears any relation to the cost for parking (even where there is no cost involved). Our Client relies on the leading authority of

ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that PCN charges, like this charge, serve a legitimate commercial interest. The relevant car parking Codes of Practice,

also give guidance that £70.00 is a reasonable sum to charge.
The signage in situ makes provision for Our Client to recover any additional costs (Contractual Costs) incurred by them in relation to the PCN. The Contractual Costs referred to above formed

part of the Terms and Conditions (of the parking contract) which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the car park. Save for the fact that the sum of £60.00 attributable towards

these costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charge, such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.

5. 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.
6. This is not a claim for trespass.
7. 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.
8. Our Client is under no obligation to supply this.
9. As established members of the British Parking Association, 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.
10. £70.00 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.
11. This will be issued in due course.

should i replay to them ,or there is no point at this stage and should I just start preparing my defense?

The_Deep

£225 is more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. Debt collection charges are not admissable. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. 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.

beamerguy

We don't know who writes this rubbish for BWLegal

part of the Terms and Conditions (of the parking contract) which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the car park. Save for the fact that the sum of £60.00 attributable towards

This means that somewhere on the signs there is a clause saying you owe a further £60 ? I have yet to see signs that show the charge is £70 plus £60 ? If there is such statement, it will be in the small print, T&C's, which cannot be easily seen and do not form a contract

THEN THEY GO ON TO SAY .....
Additionally, you are also liable for our £60.00 instructions fee as your file has been passed to us.

There will not be any such statement on the signs that say of any instructions fee.

This is a direct contradiction and a judge needs to sort this out.

THE BOTTOM LINE FOR BWLEGAL

BWLEGAL ADD ON A FAKE £60 ?
In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. >>>> thanks to bargepole

BWLegal are misleading you and the courts.
You must draw this to attention of a judge

Jetslick

Fight it and start preparing your defence. I've got a very similar case myself dealing with 2 recent claim letters from BW Legal (working with Britannia) for no valid ticket purchases. Just waiting on the court claim before I start drafting my own defence.

beamerguy

Jetslick wrote: »

Fight it and start preparing your defence. I've got a very similar case myself dealing with 2 recent claim letters from BW Legal (working with Britannia) for no valid ticket purchases. Just waiting on the court claim before I start drafting my own defence.

Don't forget to make sure the court knows about the BWLegal scam ..... DOUBLE RECOVERY

mixMZ

question is should i try to "resolve" this matter with BWLegal and somehow convince them to cancel it or just do nothing and wait for papers from CCBC?

Surely they must know that some people are aware about their practice ,read forum ,got advices how to deal with them and it should be obvious from corespondence to them that they will defend (not talking about those who just ignore all letters including real claim forms and bwlegal in a majority of cases count on winning by default)

I think I will just reply to them that I deny any liability and point that their client failed to comply with POFA2012 without any explanation and if this matter progress to court that will be proven.

Umkomaas

question is should i try to "resolve" this matter with BWLegal and somehow convince them to cancel it

Yes - and very easily done. Send them a cheque!

Other than that you will get nothing sensible from BWL - they are dealing with literally hundreds of thousands of unpaid parking charges and are spewing out various threatening letters, using a conveyor belt approach to go through a computer controlled process towards a LBC, and a MCOL Claim - and it is really only at the final stages, as a court hearing becomes a possibility, that there's any real human intervention.

You need to understand that you're not dealing with an old fashioned firm of solicitors, just progressing from a quill and ink operation, BWL are industrial harvesters of debt, using the equivalent of massive combine harvesters to do their work. This is what their website tells you:

A multi-award winning law firm specialising in volume collections, across both regulated and unregulated sectors, who are dual regulated through the FCA and SRA.

We employ around 265 people at our Leeds based office which in turn makes us the largest privately owned debt collection law firm in the UK.

beamerguy

mixMZ wrote: »

Surely they must know that some people are aware about their practice ,read forum ,got advices how to deal with them and it should be obvious from corespondence to them that they will defend (not talking about those who just ignore all letters including real claim forms and bwlegal in a majority of cases count on winning by default)

Of course they aware of people who know about the scam, everyone that comes on here is told but they prey on innocent people who have no idea.

The SRA should have sanctioned BWLegal, a long time ago, they have been given ample opportunity and so it's time we go higher than the SRA who have proven themselves as useless

beamerguy

We employ around 265 people at our Leeds based office which in turn makes us the largest privately owned debt collection law firm in the UK.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. That is the objective in 2019

mixMZ

wondering where it will take me but i wrote email back to BW legal response and also copied BP where i got SAR from.

I wish to outline my current position in reference to your claim.
BP has not fully complied with POFA2012 therefore ,you cannot rely on the provisions of the Act and hold keeper liable.

I confirm to you I was NOT the driver.
You will need to pursue this claim with the driver once you identify them.

Please note I am not obliged by law to disclose the identity of the driver and this does not affect my liability in this matter.

I do not work for you or work for free, I have no mutual, lawful or agreed contract with you.

I was not the driver of this vehicle at this time. I am not lawfully obligated to inform you of who the driver was; however, to provide you with any potential driver details, if any details were available, there will be an administration fee as below, which you MUST first agree to pay.

Any other contact originating from you will be subject to fee charges as schedule below:

Amount payable by you is: £25

I'm refusing to accept that I have entered contract with BP.

I was not the driver, so any further correspondents from you to pursue payment from me as a keeper will be seen as harassment as I remain in honor and offer remedy.

Alternatively, you can cancel your charge, or I will happily wait for my day in court to challenge this "PCN" as the registered keeper and make counter-claim against you.

For now and the foreseeable future, with regards to the above address, all implied right of access is denied to you and is denied to any third party acting on your behalf.