Bw legal letter of claim

Jb93

Hi I recently received a letter of claim from BW legal, which was very vague.

I read all the newbies posts and other post and emailed them with this;

Thank you for your letter of 9th January 2019



You have sent a Letter of Claim. However, your letter contains insufficient detail of the which dates back to January 2018 It does not even say what the cause of action is. Nor does it contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.

Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

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 am fully aware that BW Legal were 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary debate, where MPs unanimously clamoured to expose rogue parking firms and their 'cosy relationship' with firms like BW Legal making a mint from their clients' rogue ticketing and unfair fining. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines and aggressive demands for payment have no place in the 21st century and companies like yourself are an absolute disgrace;

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) !!!8211; 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


It took them right up to the date on the letter than response/payment from me was required to reply my email. As to which I received this;

Good Afternoon



Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.



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 permit to park.


2. Our Client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle.


3. Our Client does not 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 permit.
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.
The £100.00 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 £100.00 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. 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.

6. The signage situated across the Car Park forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park their vehicle at the location. As the offer is a unilateral one, there is no need for the motorist to communicate their acceptance; the performance of parking in accordance with the terms and conditions is the act of acceptance. The signs are prominent and the terms and conditions are clearly displayed, and the motorist would have had the opportunity to read and understand them on parking at the Car Park. An objective observer would consider this action to have been done in acceptance of the terms and conditions.


7. Our Client is under no obligation to supply this.


8. As established members of the International Parking Community, 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.


9. £100.00 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.


Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact our office on 0113 487 0432



Kind Regards,



bwlegal

Been searching through and I’m now unsure as to what to reply with as this email still seems very vague as to all I was asking for.

Any help on response would be great

Thanks

The_Deep

3. Our Client does not intend to rely on Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

In which case, if they do not know who was driving, they may struggle.

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.

Very doubtful, Beavis was a free car park, PE were leasing it from the landowner for £100 a week.

7. Our Client is under no obligation to supply this.

I think that they are.

Additionally, you are also liable for our £60.00 instructions fee as your file has been passed to us.

Hmmm, ask the SRA if they think that this is so. it looks like a scam to me

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

and complain to the FCA

https://www.fca.org.uk/

not to mention tour MP


The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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.

Jb93

Ok thanks I will do those things you advise. Any suggestions as to a reply to their email ?

KeithP

No need to reply again.

Wait patiently for a County Court Claim Form to drop through your letter-box.

Continue reading post #2 of the NEWBIES thread for how to deal with that.

Umkomaas

KeithP wrote: »

No need to reply again.

Wait patiently for a County Court Claim Form to drop through your letter-box.

Continue reading post #2 of the NEWBIES thread for how to deal with that.

And you will no doubt be able to swat them on the basis you have threatened them:

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) !!!8211; 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.

You do understand these cases I take it?

Coupon-mad

No suggestions needed, as the NEWBIES thread fully covers this stage.

The sticky thread does not suggest sending the reply you did, because everyone last year was getting that response and IMHO it's all slightly pointless posturing.

A rebuttal letter going on about the new PAP is NOT what the sticky thread says to do at LBC stage so if you have not yet done a SAR then do what the NEWBIES thread says.

Jb93

Following my LBC, I have had a claim form from
CCBC.

I Have been reading the newbies thread and submitted Aoc. And I have been reading through other cases defences and I have drafted this.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: Removed

BETWEEN:

Bw legal ltd (Claimant)

-and-

Xxxxxx (Defendant)


DEFENCE


1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Claim relates to an alleged outstanding liability arising from driver's alleged parking contravention, when parking at 1-5 Wesley street camborne.

3. The vehicle was parked at this location for 15 minutes while dropping something to a resident of the area and to the Defendant's local knowledge, this is a site that never required a permit. A permit was not displayed because there were no clear indications given to the Defendant to believe that a permit was require.

4. Had the Defendant been made aware, a permit would have been displayed or a alternative location to park used.

5. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

6. The allegation appears to be that the 'driver fails to display a permit' based on images by from armtrak security services who manage the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle parked in said location and is not evidence of length of stay and any signage indicating that a permit is required.

7. The Particulars of Claim does not identify whether the Defendant was 'the registered keeper and/or the driver' of the vehicle thereby indicating a failure to identify a Cause of Action. The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the POC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

8. The Defendant states that the signage at the site in question is woefully inadequate. There is a small sign located high up on a wall within the loacation. None other to inform users that is is private land and permits required.

9. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

10. Furthermore, these sign are not lit and night, the defendant was parked in the evening making the signs even more unreadable. The defendant will provide evidence of this.

11. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

12. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issu parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

13. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. This claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

14. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signature
Print Name
Date

How does this look ? Is there anything I need to add of remove thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

Bw legal ltd (Claimant)

I doubt it...!


Capital initials needed for these two words:

street camborne.

And a 'd' on the end, here:

A permit was not displayed because there were no clear indications given to the Defendant to believe that a permit was required.

And capital initials needed here and you've misspelt Armtrac:

Armtrac Security Services

Looks fine otherwise, as long as you get the Claimant right (it's not 'Armtrac' either).

Jb93

Ok thanks will later those bits didn’t have my letter to hand once writing the draft so thanks for pointing that out will get that changed.

I’m confused by the newbies thread, where is says to post this then another says to enter online which is best ?
Thank you

Coupon-mad

No-one says to enter online - avoid that.

Bargepole advises to post, but we always say to email.

See other defence threads and KeithP's posts on every single one! Be aware the Claimant is neither BW Legal or Armtrac, so get the actual company name spot on; these details are essential.

What's the issue date of your claim form?

Jb93

No claimant is KBT CORNWALL LTD.
issue day was 03 may