Another Letter Of Claim - Premier Park/BW Legal

KeithP

From your posts it is quite clear who was driving and it is quite clear who the keeper is.

As you were neither the keeper nor driver, I cannot understand why you appealed.

This should be easy for you to defend. There can be no case against a person who was neither the driver or keeper.

jjimbo320

KeithP wrote: »

As you were neither the keeper nor driver, I cannot understand why you appealed.

?

I didnt appeal, i'cant remember if they sent me a form asking who the driver and keeper are. Like for speeding tickets? Maybe i filled that in. Is that part of their standard letter? It was a long time ago..

EDIT - I may be incorrect here, yes it was an older car, since sold on, sorry i am the keeper. The Mrs used to always drive that car as i had my own. We sold it and the Mrs bought her own car, hence the misunderstanding. I guess they got my details off the DVLA. Sorry!

Coupon-mad

OK, so like on most cases we see, you are the keeper and did not transfer liability to the driver. So have a look at other similar defences using the search words I gave you.

Of course litigant in person victims of PPCs can get our help, after all we are successful 99% of the time - and we do this for free - so who wouldn't use this resource even though I say so myself!

jjimbo320

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Maybe because you didn't realise you can search the forum to find SHEDLOADS of them with keywords:

defence grace period minutes true


Of course, there always are signs up IN EVERY case. We still see 99% wins here.

No, any of the usual grounds of defence apply as per the grace period defences you read.

Are you the registered keeper of the car?

You gave your wife's name and address? If you did (and have proof of posting it) then they have no cause of action against you even if you wanted to assume liability again, the law doesn't work like that. A good thing if PP are aiming a claim against you, who already transferred liability with the name and postal address (did you?) of the driver, way back.

You will need to give the bank that chq number and ask them if it was ever cashed.
I doubt it.

So i checked my bank statements and there doesn't appear to be any cheques paid for said amount.

Whats the course of action now? Am i liable for the £100 at least?

I see that the boards is busy and im four pages down the list, seems like these Parking scams are big business!

Coupon-mad

Whats the course of action now? Am i liable for the £100 at least?

Nothing has changed - re-read the advice that's been given, and the NEWBIES thread about sending a SAR if you've not done that

jjimbo320

OK, i assume you mean this one. Thanks C/M. Will send it off, am i correct in assuming this is the SAR? Or do i need to send to Premier Park as well.

"Dear Sirs,

Your client: Premier Park / account number xxxxxxx / VRN xxxxxxxx

I am in receipt of your letter of 29th April 2019. Any debt is denied but I am seeking debt advice from a reputable online source. As such, in accordance with the PAP for Debt Claims, you must now put the matter on hold for at least 30 days from receipt of this communication.

At least that will give me the chance to also receive and review the data that your client deigns to produce at long last, none of which accompanied your template 'Letter of Claim'.

I realise that personal data does not include a copy of the signage that your client purports bound me to a contract. I now request this and require that you supply all signage photographs and any other items that your client intends to rely upon, after the 30 day period and certainly before commencing court action.

Estimated Claim
This is a baseless claim and pure harassment. The estimated claim is alarmist, intimidating and contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge, which was not £160 and is in any event, denied in its entirety.

An additional charge - variously described as 'initial legal costs' or 'debt collection' depending on how the mood seems to take BW Legal in your template letters - is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 where only £85 was recovered and it was held that such a case cannot be pleaded in damages.

In addition, whilst the CPRs allow interest to be claimed, it is unreasonable to attempt to claim interest where the time that has passed is wholly due to your client's own inaction and choice in failing to pursue this meritless case in a timely fashion, until suddenly deciding to scrape the barrel by farming hundreds of old cases to yourselves, a self-proclaimed 'one-stop-shop for debt collection'.

Further, you have included 'legal costs' , despite no solicitor having been involved. Any purported 'legal costs' are made up out of thin air. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste robo-claims.

It is an abuse of process for a Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for additional sums which it is not entitled to recover and the court will be invited to strike out the claim.

Further, CPR 44.3 (2) states:
''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.


Enclosures
I will not be filling in financial forms. Your parking firm client is not entitled to such data and there is no debt to discuss, as there never is with the industry you choose to prop up. Both you and your client were named and shamed in Parliament in 2018 during the readings of the long-awaiting Parking Bill (now Act) and you are the last people any honest victim of an unfair 'parking charge' scam would want to furnish with their private financial information.


What you need to do now
(a) Advise your client to cancel this meritless proposed claim to avoid wasted legal action.

(b) Given that I have duly informed you that the debt is disputed and I am seeking debt advice from a reputable online source, in accordance with the PAP for Debt Claims you must now put the matter on hold for at least 30 days from receipt of this communication.

(c) Once the 30 day period has passed you must comply with the PAP for debt claims and supply me with the requested information that does not fall under the SAR, namely all photographs taken on the material date, showing the signage terms. This must be supplied in advance of any claim in order to comply with the PAP.

(d) Please note that this communication also acts as an Erasure and Rectification Notice under the GDPR, because their client's data includes an incorrect old address which is not your address for service and must be erased and not used for any court related documents

old address ********************* This must be removed and rectified to your current address only.

How to get in touch
You may contact me by post or email after the 30 days has elapsed

My address for service is:
xxxxxxxxx

I trust this is satisfactory and clarifies my position. Should you be dissatisfied with your own response and data processing you may report yourselves by making a complaint to SRA and Information Commissioner's Office.

yours faithfully,

xxxxxx"

Coupon-mad

Am i correct in assuming this is the SAR?

No, it is not the SAR.

As I said:

re-read the advice that's been given, and the NEWBIES thread about sending a SAR if you've not done that.

The SAR comes first, by email to the PPC, today.