BW Legal - Armtrac Letter of Claim

Bakerbl

Hi,

This is my first post although I have been following your great advice for several months. I am being pursued as keeper for no displayed permit at a residential car park in Cornwall, with allocated spaces and where I was a permit holding resident at the time. Signage is awful and prepared to go to court hopefully using your advice.

BW Legal have sent a Letter of Claim just in time for Christmas - nice. I don’t think it is a proper Letter Before Claim - just a brief summary of my vehicle details, Armtrac ref and the cost of £100 Charge + £60 debt recovery cost then a breakdown of estimated costs and debt advice information.. Then there are several forms - a tick box form (Section 1) stating whether I agree I owe the debt, owe some, don’t know or I dispute the debt. Section 2 on how I intend to pay. Section 3 is a detailed income and expenditure form for me to fill in and Section 4 outlining any documents I want and documents I am providing. I already have the photos from Armtrac and a summary of correspondence. I did ask Armtrac for the contract with the landowner which was not received. I am thinking at this stage I will just fill in and return Section 1 saying I dispute and Section 4 asking for the contracts between landowner, Armtrac and also BW Legal. Is this a good plan or should I include more? I already have sent numerous letters to Armtrac outlining why I don’t owe the debt. I imagine I’ll be getting a proper Letter before Claim in due course (or is this it?)

Thanks!

The_Deep

Please read these first

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/ukpc-hit-for-352-for-discontinuing.html

What does your lease/AST say about the requirement to display a permit, or pay a third party for not displaying one? This is usually a scam and your lease will have primacy over any PPC's punative T&Cs.

From what you have said, you may have had a proper LOC, can you put a copy on here.

Please also complain to your MP, PPC scammers have no place in residential car parks.

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

I assume the LBC gave you 30 days to respond ???

BWLegal are trying to extort an extra £60 from you.
In your case, they claim it's debt recovery, in other cases that
state "contractual" "legal fees" etc.

Basically BWL do not have a clue what the £60 is for but they still try to scam you.

Did debt collectors DRP ever contact you ?

Here is the truth about the fake BWLegal add-on
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

THIS MUST BE POINTED OUT TO THE COURT

You can ignore the forms. Rebut what they say with the evidence you have. If they ignore you, then you must inform the court that BWL has ignored you thereby not giving you the opportunity
to properly defend and request the case is struck off.

It is a way off before you are sent court papers.

Bear in mind that the courts are fully aware of BWL and the dodgy claims they make

Bakerbl

Thanks for your reply. The apartment was rented as a holiday let so don’t have access to the lease. I’m trying to contact the owner (apartment was not booked by me) now so they can share their lease terms. I think I have tracked down the landowner to a Bodmin based property management company with executives that live in the apartment block. I have not made contact as yet but do have an address for them.

One thing that is striking is that everyone has designated and numbered places but permanent residents appeared to be parking in the wrong bays and never get ticketed.

I’ll get the documents uploaded ASAP.

Bakerbl

In reply to beamerguy - Yes I have 30 days. BW Legal sent a debt collectors letter for the first time a few weeks back.I have complained about the £60 add on to BW Legal and the SRA as I noticed from other posts that this may be an attempt at double recovery.

So I’ll list the reasons why I dispute the charge (should be straight forward - no signs on the side of the car park where my vehicle was and only signs on other side at toddler height. ) and then send off yes? Shall I also mention this attempt at double recovery again?

Thanks.

Bakerbl

Ive OCR’d and pasted the letter body text here:

LETTER OF CLAIM

Dear XXXXX
Our Client KBT Cornwall Ltd aka Armtrac Security Services
Date of Contravention: XXX
Account Number: XXX
Balance Due: £160.00
Vehicle Registration:
Contravention Description: No Permit
Contravention Location:


We have been instructed by KBT Cornwall Ltd t/a Armtrac Security Services to commence legal action in the form of issuing a Claim against you in the County Court in respect of the above debt. lf payment or a response is not received before XX January 2019 we are instructed to issue a Claim against you in the County Court without further notice. If you dispute this debt please tell us why so that we can help resolve this matter.

Estimated Claim
Such legal action may result in you being liable for court fees, solicitors costs and statutory interest which are estimated below.

Enclosures
Enclosed with this letter are:

Information Sheet: a sheet explaining what to do next, including how to avoid Court action.
Reply Form: a form lo complete and return containing four sections.
lncome and Expenditure Form: a form lo complete and return to outline your financial circumstances.

Principal Debt + Initial Legal Costs - £160.00
Estimated interest £4.38
Estimated Court Fees £25.00
Estimated Solicitors Costs £50.00
Estimated Total £239.38

What You Need To Do Now
Payment of £160.00 or your reasons for non payment are required by XX January 2019 to avoid the above legal action. If you are unable to pay the Balance in full, Our Client is willing to enter into a payment arrangement which is affordable for you taking into account your financial circumstances.

Redx

yes, put a rebutal in and insist they follow the PaP oct 2017 rules, providing all evidence and paperwork and photos etc, put them on the spot and refute their charges etc


also do a free SAR to the DPO at ARMTRAC to get all their data on the recipient of these letters etc , by adapting the legal beagles template


in doing this you are attempting to get all the evidence that both parties have about the person they are chasing, especially as the next stage is an MCOL from Northampton CCBC

Bakerbl

Regarding the PaP rules Oct 2017 - can someone provide a link to this? I can only find the pre-Oct ones and other links are dead. Much appreciated.

beamerguy

Bakerbl wrote: »

Regarding the PaP rules Oct 2017 - can someone provide a link to this? I can only find the pre-Oct ones and other links are dead. Much appreciated.

Google ...... PaP rules Oct 2017

Bakerbl

I’ve responded to the Letter of Claim and am awaiting their response. I also challenged them, separately, over the extra charges that they have added without justification. I got the reply below:

hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/213gfgw.jpg

And the signage that they refer to is displayed here:

hxxp://i67.tinypic.com/2d7iu0h.jpg

The_Deep

Read this and complain to your MP as well.

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.

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.