POPLA refused my appeal - should I write back?

Coupon-mad

Start at the first post and read it all:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here/p1

nuremburger06

Received the below from BWL in response to my email to them along the lines of what @beamerguy suggested.

Dear Sir 

Thank you for your email dated the 18 April 2020. 

Please see my response to your comments below for your consideration. 

It is suggested that charges are contrary to the rules of POFA 2012. This is denied. 

Paragraph 4 (6) of Schedule 4 says “nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other person in respect of any unpaid parking charges”.  

So it is incorrect to say that POFA 2012 does not prevent the Claimant for claiming debt recovery charges. 

The Claimant is seeking recovery of its debt recovery costs in the sum of £60.00.

The above term forms part of the Terms and Conditions, which were agreed by you by parking in the Car Park. Had you paid the PCN then the Claimant’s need to instruct solicitors (incurring expense) to recover the PCN charge would have been avoided. 

Under paragraph 23.1b of the Code of Practice, where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70.00 unless prior approval from the Trade Association has been granted.

We trust this clarifies the position. 

Yours Sincerely, 

BW Legal

Not surprised really, their ignorance no longer surprises me. Just a case of waiting to hear back from the court now.

Coupon-mad

Load of misleading crap, as usual.  They tried that useless argument at Southampton!

KeithP

So it is incorrect to say that POFA 2012 does not prevent the Claimant for claiming debt recovery charges. 

Too many negatives there.

Are they really saying that "POFA 2012 prevents the Claimant for claiming debt recovery charges"?

That's right, but not what they meant to say, I'm sure. 

nuremburger06

Coincidentally, the post man just dropped this through the letter box. Impressed as to how fast the court responded tbh. I only sent my WS and other docs on Monday. 

Le_Kirk

nuremburger06 said:

Received the below from BWL in response to my email to them along the lines of what @beamerguy suggested.

Dear Sir 

Thank you for your email dated the 18 April 2020. 

Please see my response to your comments below for your consideration. 

It is suggested that charges are contrary to the rules of POFA 2012. This is denied. 

Paragraph 4 (6) of Schedule 4 says “nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other person in respect of any unpaid parking charges”.  

So it is incorrect to say that POFA 2012 does not prevent the Claimant for claiming debt recovery charges. 

The Claimant is seeking recovery of its debt recovery costs in the sum of £60.00.

The above term forms part of the Terms and Conditions, which were agreed by you by parking in the Car Park. Had you paid the PCN then the Claimant’s need to instruct solicitors (incurring expense) to recover the PCN charge would have been avoided. 

Under paragraph 23.1b of the Code of Practice, where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70.00 unless prior approval from the Trade Association has been granted.

We trust this clarifies the position. 

Not surprised really, their ignorance no longer surprises me. Just a case of waiting to hear back from the court now.

Oops, they missed a bit out, see below for the full sentence of 4(6): -

(6)Nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other person in respect of any unpaid parking charges (but this is not to be read as permitting double recovery).

Coupon-mad

Email this to BW Legal, then go and read the thread by @Littlewadie to see the email I suggested they send to their court and the solicitor, that you can adapt to send in May (show us first because it will need some editing because you haven't been to a wasted hearing like they did):


Dear Sirs, 
Re Claim xxxxxxxxx 

I have received the Order from the court in the above claim number and note that the case will be relisted for a hearing from July onwards and that the case remains temporarily stayed until then.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not agree to a hearing 'on the papers' and nor do I want a remote hearing.  I require you to cease and desist with your template letters and not bother with the template 'Good news - 15% reduction during COVID' shocking piece of dross in your name, that has been landing on victims' doormats this month.  You are also not to contact me by telephone or text at all.

However, in order to encourage the court to dispose of this meritless case, I will be inviting the court to consider their duty under s71 of the CRA 2015 in the light of the evidence and facts already in front of them, namely the abuse of process of your client adding an unrecoverable £60 to the claim, as happened in Southampton Court in 2019 when your firm sent a barrister who lost a contested N244 application to have exaggerated parking cases reinstated. 

I will copy you into that email to the court in May, along with a copy of the Approved Judgment from DJ Grand, that your firm kindly funded and is being used for the greater good.  I hereby invite your client to discontinue if they wish to avoid their/your abuse of the court process being exposed yet again, to wider court areas.

yours faithfully, 

nuremburger06

Coupon-mad said:

Email this to BW Legal, then go and read the thread by @Littlewadie to see the email I suggested they send to their court and the solicitor, that you can adapt to send in May (show us first because it will need some editing because you haven't been to a wasted hearing like they did):


Dear Sirs, 
Re Claim xxxxxxxxx 

I have received the Order from the court in the above claim number and note that the case will be relisted for a hearing from July onwards and that the case remains temporarily stayed until then.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will not agree to a hearing 'on the papers' and nor do I want a remote hearing.  I require you to cease and desist with your template letters and not bother with the template 'Good news - 15% reduction during COVID' shocking piece of dross in your name, that has been landing on victims' doormats this month.  You are also not to contact me by telephone or text at all.

However, in order to encourage the court to dispose of this meritless case, I will be inviting the court to consider their duty under s71 of the CRA 2015 in the light of the evidence and facts already in front of them, namely the abuse of process of your client adding an unrecoverable £60 to the claim, as happened in Southampton Court in 2019 when your firm sent a barrister who lost a contested N244 application to have exaggerated parking cases reinstated. 

I will copy you into that email to the court in May, along with a copy of the Approved Judgment from DJ Grand, that your firm kindly funded and is being used for the greater good.  I hereby invite your client to discontinue if they wish to avoid their/your abuse of the court process being exposed yet again, to wider court areas.

yours faithfully, 

Sorry, just seen this now and then read the thread by littlewadie. Noted your post on page 11 of that thread. Is there a reason why you suggested writing to the court in May?

nuremburger06

So, this is the email I have written to send to the court, its quite shorter than littlewadie's because a lot of it didn't apply in my case. 

Dear District Judge,

I have received the court's order dated 23 April 2020. My response to the order is as follows and this has been emailed to the court and to the claimant's solicitors, BW Legal.

I would like to once again urge the claimant to discontinue their meritless claim. I will not agree to a hearing on the papers because I need a fair opportunity to be heard if this oppressive case continues. This claim is following the usual oppressive parking robo-claim path, with very sparse and stylised particulars, later followed by a case made by way of ambush, using a 50-page prolix statement, littered with errors and template legal arguments. This is not a witness statement at all and fails to assist the court in identifying the facts of the case.  

I ask the court to review the prospect of applying sanctions against the claimant and to consider its duty under s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This sets out that courts have a duty to consider the fairness of terms once sufficient information is known, and to deal with abuse as part of its case management powers. This is a process that can be applied at any time and certainly before a hearing, as has been shown by the recent actions of courts as widely spread as Caernarfon, Skipton, Southampton, Warwick, the IOW and Luton, who in the past ten months or more have continued to strike parking cases out purely due to the sum claimed having a false '£60 contractual costs' added. 

Consequentially, and to remove an unnecessary burden on the court, I respectfully invite that this case is struck out now because of the claimant's abuse of process. In the alternative, the claimant is invited to immediately discontinue this meritless claim and give me and my family, peace of mind at this vulnerable time.    

I hope to hear directions that the claim is struck out for abuse of process and unfair terms, or that the claimant has filed a Notice of Discontinuance. Staying the claim is only a temporary measure and to have this still lingering for a number months would be unfair on me if the court does not apply its duty set out at s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 at a stage when the facts are there to be read.

Coupon-mad

Actually when re-reading that Order, I would not write to the court (no need). 
Just send BW Legal the email I wrote, and await further court Directions in the Summer.