Napier --to-- BWlegal LBA Received, Next steps to response urgent

teccom

Hi all,

Have a just a few more days to respond to what is in affect a "Letter before Action/Claim" from BWlegal for a PCN issued against one of our company vans.

The van is owned outright by the company, but the RK is the MD (me) although I drive it once in a blue moon to be honest, the so called PCN was issued by post SEP18 by Napier Parking.

I spoke with the engineers as sometimes I will deal with any offense for them if it’s in a lease/hire vehicle, but as this van is in my name, I sometimes give their name to the PPC as it takes up my time and they should be sensible where they park!

But when the engineer told me where they got the ticket I was surprised, in fact bowled over!

It was issued on a commercial estate with big locked gates, you cannot drive in to this estate, you cannot even walk in to the estate/parking area unless you have a keyfob or are given access, so the reason why my boys were in the estate is because they were on a quoted job of ours installing air-conditioning for another building contractor!

They were told where to park by the contractor after of course they were let in the gates!

They worked there for 3 days, and the PCN was on one day of the three for a period observed of 12:48:19 to 12:48:39, reason for issue: Parking or waiting in the roadway or on a verge/footpath!

30 SECONDS!!!

Anyway, I called whom we were subcontracting for who was still on site working (big job), and the site foreman informed me they themselves had over 10 of them and their BIG firm were stopping it out of their wages, I let him know they should not do that, but aside from that he informed me there is apparently a guy that wanders about and takes photos of parked vehicles every now and again and they get these tickets, he had been on the job months and only received around 10, they spoke with another reception on the estate and nobody cared to help.

Anyway, my actions, appealed online to Napier not identifying the driver, and with no intention of asking for an IAS kangaroo waste of time appeal as follows: - (private details removed)

Date xyz/10/18
address
Dear Sirs

Re: FCN No. WL11

---

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

Since your PCN is a vague template, I require all photos taken, a clear image of the signage and an explanation of the allegation.

I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP, appraising all parties of the debate where Parliament agreed: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''. Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and that 'we make it up most of the time' (BBC Watchdog).

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service.

Yours faithfully,

squiggle

me (company name)

END OF LETTER

Okay, had the usual crap through, now a BW Legal letter which gives me to Mon/Tue of next week to respond by.

I am happy to go to court, wasn’t the driver, have no intention of telling them who the driver was, lets face it I know everyone thinks the governors of companies are a$$holes but this one isn’t and there is no way I would put this on to my engineers who have done nothing wrong, as I know they will just pay it despite me often telling them to fight this PPC snakes!

Any help or more info reqd?

And thanks as always in advance all.

Coupon-mad

Can you post this again, on your existing thread if this is the same case?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5907500/company-pcn-within-21days

Let this thread die and stick to one thread all the time so we can follow it all.

The van is owned outright by the company, but the RK is the MD (me)

I see you lost a case in 2017, so make sure you reply now to this LBC, setting out your position about the facts of the case and that:

- you are not the owner, your company is,

- you are only the registered keeper and were not driving, and

- POFA was not properly followed to transfer liability to you as keeper, and

- nor was there any 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' or any contravention,

- nor does CPS v AJH Films apply, given that there was no contravention so there is no agency liability to transfer to the registered keeper, because

- the van was waiting to be let in the gates and appears to have been photographed in the seconds it took for the driver to alert the business of his arrival and need to be let in. Here I would quote the exemption set out in the TMA2004 about being allowed to 'wait' while gates are opened to premises. On private land of course the same exemption MUST apply, this is a scam!

As you are an individual, the hearing will be at your local court.

Anyway please copy your post into your linked thread instead and we'll continue there.

teccom

Hiya,

Thanks for that I will go over this Monday, but briefly looking at it, the van was let into site and told by site where to park it, same place other vans were directed to park over several months, never mind the 3 days my boys were there, so let in told where to park, then at some point in their 6-8hr day photographed, not windscreen ticketed but postal ticketed for one event.


Also "no" this is not the same case, the other thread was another vehicle and their solicitors backed down BUT in an email they did sneakily ask us to update them who the driver was one last time before giving up, so that case is ended as far as I am concerned, however there is a lease fee issue that is again entirely seperate to this owned by the company van.

Also we did not lose a case back in 2017, they were after us for a few thousand pounds, however what did happen was extremely odd the Judge actually agreed under the PoFA that the PPC had no right to pursue me and therefore she struck out the fines/claimed amount, BUT she then said effectively as I had not mentioned in my initial defence, nor CPR the argument I brought to court that I could have avoided the court action, and she ordered I pay the court fees, but not a loss!

It was quite outstanding really as I was left asking the Judge why she agrees I am not liable under PoFA, but the only reason I was at court is because they brought action pursuant to PoFA! There can be no "B" without an "A" was my argument, but in reality it was a fair point that I probably did not fully follow CPR, lesson learned.

I will come back to this Monday, as I now realise the BWlegal letter doesnt seem to be a LBA.

KeithP

teccom wrote: »

Also "no" this is not the same case, the other thread was another vehicle and their solicitors backed down BUT in an email they did sneakily ask us to update them who the driver was one last time before giving up, so that case is ended as far as I am concerned, however there is a lease fee issue that is again entirely seperate to this owned by the company van.

Then please update your other thread.

teccom

Putting together a response based on https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72358831#Comment_72358831

But is it a bit early firing the gun on this as if I read the following in BWlegals letter:- (abbr)
As you failed to appeal within 28days (not true, have acknoledgement from them of appeal), the balance of XYZ is due 16days of this letter.
If you fail blah blah, we will seek from client blah blah to take proceeding in CC, which MAY result in you receiving a Letter of Claim pursuant to blah blah CPR.

So this isnt an LBC, so should I bother finishing my letter yet, I have a nice starting edit on LoadsofChildrens brilliant post, but I want to save that for any potential LBC response.

Should I just send them a response that a SAR has been made to the PPC for now, and make a SAR to the scammers?

Again on to other comments, I did respond to your post on Saturday ref van entry, and also it is 100% correct the company not me owns the vehicle, and 100% I can prove I wasnt the driver if I need to go to court, in fact the only reason I am the RK is for insurance purposes as the van is one I used to use a bit and I had it on personal insurance originally from new which I was told required me, not the company on the VRN as RK.

But I have drove it only possibly a dozen times since 2014!

What do you think?

teccom

Just to update thread, took a while longer but I finally received a BWlegal 30 days letter of claim.

So I have emailed a SAR to the DPO of the original PPC and will email a letter to BWlegal informing this before the expiry of the LBC.

Of note if an admin reads this could you update the NEWBIES page ref the SAR, as it doesn't mention the need to send a proof of being the eligible data subject, namely a copy of the V5C etc.

I did see CouponMad mention it in other threads, so I included it as the standard linked Legal-Beagles template only references them requesting such info should it be lacking...

Coupon-mad

Of note if an admin reads this could you update the NEWBIES page ref the SAR, as it doesn't mention the need to send a proof of being the eligible data subject, namely a copy of the V5C etc.

We have no admin or Mods here but I edit the NEWBIES thread so will take a look at the SAR section when I next edit it (I have some edits due soon!).

I already intended to edit that bit to tell people to tell BW Legal/Gladstones/SCS or whichever solicitor sent the LBC, that the Defendant is 'seeking debt advice' (which makes them put it on hold).

teccom

Thanks mate.
I need to email the solicitors BW next week, have you a point to ref their letter other than the basic one saying we have requested a SAR to their client as you seem to be alluding to a different type of letter?

I know coupon mad had a great one ref another forum member ribbing a Jake (from memory) of Excel.

Coupon-mad

You just need to add your own sentence, nothing major.

I really hate templates!

teccom

Okay thanks,

Anyway just received a blanket response from the PPC claiming the V5C is not sufficient ID for a SAR.

They claim to have a form we should use and on looking it they are asking for more information than I am willing to give, i.e. copy of birth cert/passport/bill etc.

I think the route would be a blanket response to let them know that a SAR should not require that and an intentioned update that if they fail to comply being the only detail they have for the claim in the first instance is DVLA one liner of RK, that that is sufficient and I will be making a complaint to the ICO for breaches and potentially compensation?

This must happen all the time?

beamerguy

teccom wrote: »

Okay thanks,

Anyway just received a blanket response from the PPC claiming the V5C is not sufficient ID for a SAR.

They claim to have a form we should use and on looking it they are asking for more information than I am willing to give, i.e. copy of birth cert/passport/bill etc.

I think the route would be a blanket response to let them know that a SAR should not require that and an intentioned update that if they fail to comply being the only detail they have for the claim in the first instance is DVLA one liner of RK, that that is sufficient and I will be making a complaint to the ICO for breaches and potentially compensation?

This must happen all the time?

You do not give scammers information they are not entitled to.

The V5 confirms the information they obtained from the DVLA

To confirm who you are, they need an address and your name.
NO PHONE NUMBER.

If they do not obey, you report them to the ICO