BW Legal - Letter of Claim received - 3 PCNs

nosferatu1001

1) If you are sure they have complied with POFA, and can defend as the driver, then doing so is no disadvantage. If they HAVE complied with pofa then there is no advantage to be gained from hiding the drivers identity.

A SAR has absolutely nothing to do with the PAP. A SAR is a legal obligation on the controller, the PAP is a mere protocol.
2) That sentence doesnt make a lot of sense.
Under the PAP they have 30 days to repsond to your request for docs, providing them or otherwise saying why they cannot
Under a SAR they have one month to get all documents to you, with NO excuses allowed

3) If you are writing a LBC response, then you should of ocurse refer to the SAR, as usually youre telling the solicitor to restrict processing until the SAR is responded to AND you have had chance to understand the response.

If you mean somehting else, I aologise. Youre mixing terms togerher that are entirely and fundamentally seperate.

rightlyfrustrated

My apologies for not being clear, but I believe you have gone some way to clarifying my understanding of the process and the approach I need to take.

What I was actually trying to say, was that I asked for a SAR and at the same time, additional information that would not necessarily be encompassed by the SAR (e.g. contract with landowner, evidence to be used to support their claim, contract with landowner, etc.).

That particular query related to, whether the requests (SAR and additional information) needed to be presented as two separate requests under PAP or can be encompassed in the one email. I gather from the response it can be incorporated into a single email.

Regards

Rightfully Frustrated

Coupon-mad

Doesn't matter, as you won't get the landowner contract till WS/evidence stage.

rightlyfrustrated

OK. We are now getting to the business end of the process where, after a rebuttal denying the validity of the claim and saying it will be argued in court, I have received a final letter of demand from BW Legal before they commence court proceedings.

The letter includes a reference that I'm likely to incur significant costs should I lose the claim action, including their legal costs. Whilst I believe I have good grounds to defend what I believe is a vexatious claim (e.g. previous IAS appeal upheld with operator and same location, dubious positioning of the signs, etc.) and I feel it necessary to take a principled stand, I'm also aware that the law is a 'donkey' - seems like the more appropriate term is not allowed!!

Therefore, whilst it is legally possible I will have to pay the claimants legal costs, what is the likelihood that this would be borne out? I constantly see on this forum that following the advice of the helpful members will generally lead to 99.9% of cases being won and even if lost, the ruling of costs would probably be less than the original claim. Is this something members stand by? As cost is definitely a risk consideration in this matter.

On another note, BW Legal are stalling with the SAR and other information request by asking me to reconfirm my 'official' email address, despite me providing the address and them using it to contact me with all correspondences. Very annoying, but not unexpected I'm guessing.

Any thoughts on cost and dealing with this matter would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Rightfully Frustrated.

Umkomaas

Unless the defendant has been wholly unreasonable in actions leading to the hearing, then if you lose, costs are restricted at a small claims court hearing to:

£100 - cost of original ticket
£25 - court filing fee (already paid by claimant)
£25 - court hearing fee (to be paid by the claimant before the hearing)
*£50 - capped cost of legal assistance in bringing the claim (if expended)
**£xx - a few pounds interest if the case has been dragging on for some months/years
* challengeable (ask for proof of payment)
** challengeable (what is/are the base(s) against which interest has been calculated, and their time line(s))

BWL will also try to add on other costs like debt recovery fees (DCAs in this game work on a no win, no fee basis) and also some spurious other costs, between the two, around £80-£100 - either/both of these must be challenged and we've read many cases where doing so sees the Judge disallow them - but it doesn't stop them trying, again and again!

For a single ticket, you are looking at a realistic figure of ~£175-£200, but if you're a glass half-empty kind of fella, it could be nearer £300 if you don't fight your corner over the more spurious add-ons, don't expect a Judge to do that for you. What you don't challenge in court can be read as you having no argument against. This is why we see judgments in default (where the defendant didn't even know there was a case against them) running at £300-£350.

rightlyfrustrated

Thanks for this. Makes it clearer. They are trying to bill me for "Initial Legal Costs" of £140 and court/solicitor fees of £85. So will make note of this in my response.

I've largely followed the advice (with some minor missteps) provided in these forums, for example:

• Appealed to the Operator (duly rejected), but when rejected do not appeal to IAS (though I did appeal for the first PCN and it was upheld);
• Ignore the Debt Collection Agency notices (though I did respond once to deny the debt); and
• Respond to the Letter of Claim from BW Legal (brief rebuttal).

I assume this is would not be deemed as being unreasonable, and as IAS upheld the first appeal I would think I have sufficient grounds to make a case for the other PCNs.

Regards

Rightfully Frustrated.

Coupon-mad

You'll see our defences do include a section about added, imaginary costs, like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75304578#Comment_75304578

You will need that for claim/defence stage, which is inevitable with these roboclaims. Don't be intimidated by it. We see 99% wins because the claims are a scam/diabolical.

rightlyfrustrated

Well I expect to receive the MCOL any day now, I will post my defence here for review. Thanks for everyone's input to date.

I have a question out of curiosity rather than any action I'm intending to take.

Hypothetically, if one was to make a ‘reasonable offer’ to settle a claim and that offer is rejected by the claimant, and if it was to proceed to Small Claims would the adjudicator/judge view this as an admission of liability?

Umkomaas

would the adjudicator/judge view this as an admission of liability?

Possibly. Takes a brave man to second guess what's in a Judge's head.

Mark the offer 'Without Prejudice - Save as to Costs', then it can't be referred to in court to your detriment by the PPC.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, you do the above adn the letter cannot be used until AFTER the case is decided, one way or the other
You can also make it clear you are making an offer to avoid the time taken in a claim you are confident in winning.