County Court Claim Process

GoshDarn

Hi all!

I have recently received a lbc from BW Legal, suggesting that a vehicle of which I am the registered keeper, had been identified as having an expired parking ticket by their clients operatives 2 years ago in a pay and display car park.

I had received no previous correspondence from their client at any point previous to this, so sent a SAR to their clients so I can see for myself exactly why they are claiming and when and where they have sent the PCNs (if they in fact have).

I also sent a quick email to BW legal advising them of what I had done, and asked them to hold their proceedings until I had received the SAR.

They have replied with a letter stating that they are not willing to hold proceedings, and to contact them to reach a suitable solution.

My question is this; would it be better to hold off communications with BW legal until I have received the SAR, or would a reply be more beneficial?[STRIKE][STRIKE][/STRIKE][/STRIKE]

Redx

wait for the SAR reply


and wait for the B W LEGAL next move (an MCOL from Northampton CCBC)

Le_Kirk

Is it a proper LBC, giving you 30 days to reply, setting out their proof and including financial forms (which you don't fill in)? If so, as well as submitting the SAR you should send a rebuttal to BW Legal. When/if you receive formal court papers make sure you complete the AOS (acknowledgement of Service) in good time and then read up on how to construct a defence. In the meantime search on the forum for posts about BW legal refusing to put cases on hold and subsequent complaints to the ICO.

I found this posted recently by Jetslick: -

BW Legal are refusing all emails regarding suspending data processing.

If I were you, I'd firstly complain to the ICO that BW Legal have refused to suspend data processing and put your case 'on hold' despite The Limitation Act giving 6 years to pursue this case through court. They have no reason to refuse temporarily suspending data processing whilst you wait for Britannia Parking to comply with your SAR. BW Legal are attempting to time you out and put you in a disadvantage to make you file a defence without the time and information required to assist your defence. It is BW Legal's responsibility you get this information from their client.

Redx

as above, reply and rebut if the latest letter is the 30 day notice and financial forms communication


however, if you had that and sent in the rebuttal, you could wait for the SAR reply first


if in doubt , keep playing email tennis, denying any alleged debt

GoshDarn

Thanks for your help guys!

It doesn’t seem to be the ‘official’ LBC, I’m assuming this is one of their chain letters before they send the official one!

I’ll wait for the SAR and see what’s going on..

The_Deep

They have replied with a letter stating that they are not willing to hold proceedings, and to contact them to reach a suitable solution.

Genuine or not, reply to them saying that you are not wiling to contact them will be brought to the attention of the SRA.

https://sra.org.uk/home/home.page

Also, complain to your MP as 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.

GoshDarn

Hello again!

As expected, I now have the official LBC, with attached ‘income and expenditure’ forms.
I have yet to receive any news on the SAR from their clients, or any evidence, and have formulated a reply. Any comments or criticism before sending would be greatly received


Thank you for your letter dated 15th January 2019.

As I previously stated in my my correspondence with yourselves dated 30th December 2018, I have requested a SAR from your client (Premier Parking Solutions), to provide me with all of the details upon which this money is being claimed, including all photos taken at the time concerning this registration, as well as the relevant signage and copies of all letters and correspondence which have been sent. As you may well know, section 7 of the Data Protection Act places a statutory obligation on organisations to respond to such requests within 40 calendar days. As of yet I have received no such information.

I have now received a letter of claim from yourselves. Upon receipt of this letter, it has been found to contain insufficient details of the claim in question, including as stated above, any photographic evidence, or for that matter any evidence at all that your client is intending to rely on.

Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. The new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

I will draw the courts attention to the fact that I have also sent correspondence to yourselves in an attempt to delay proceedings while I am awaiting the relevant information to be presented from your client, which you bluntly rejected. This puts me at a distinct disadvantage, in an attempt to force me to pay a settlement fee before I have any evidence that you are relying on.

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 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); 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 faithfully,

Coupon-mad

As you may well know, section 7 of the Data Protection Act places a statutory obligation on organisations to respond to such requests within 40 calendar days.

Off the top of my head, GDPR makes the timeline normally 30 days, doesn't it?

Remove ALL this waffle, where are people finding this ancient 2017 template from?

Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. The new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

I will draw the courts attention to the fact that I have also sent correspondence to yourselves in an attempt to delay proceedings while I am awaiting the relevant information to be presented from your client, which you bluntly rejected. This puts me at a distinct disadvantage, in an attempt to force me to pay a settlement fee before I have any evidence that you are relying on.

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 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).

GoshDarn

Yes, you’re right. It used to be 40 days but has now been changed to 1 month as of May 2018.

Found that on a relatively recent post on here, is there no need to mention the Practice Direction?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

It's ancient and if someone used it recently (last 6 months) they were probably told not to. That is such an obvious template, it will always look weak to the solicitor/PPC; giving the impression of someone who hasn't a clue what they are doing and has just copied it, despite the PAP for Debt claims being changed nearly 18 months now and the whole thing being far too long, asking for things you will not get at this stage.

See the NEWBIES thread. Please no more PAP rebuttal templates on any thread!

GoshDarn

Alright I’ve started afresh removing all the old rubbish and hand written the rebuttal. Thanks for your help. I’ll wait for the SAR and see what’s going on