BWL LOC Advice Sought

Supertato

Hi – great to see the fight against these fake parking charges is as strong as ever.


BW Legal have sent me a Letter of Claim for a Premier Park PCN from a number of years ago – chasing me as the keeper. BW’s reply deadline is 2/06/2019.


You guys have helped me in the past and (I think) I’ve done the reading suggested. I’m starting a new thread to avoid being identified and to make sure the details are as clear as I can make them. I have done SARs to Premier Park and DRP (I couldn’t resist making them do some work). They have replied and I have their information.


I would appreciate advice on whether to send the ‘I’m seeking legal advice’ letter to gain another 30 days or whether to send a more robust defence at this stage. Part of my defence will be that I was denied access to POPLA and/or that the PPC had already identified the driver. I wasn’t the driver. A relative was moving into a flat.


I received the NTK and appealed using the templates recommended at the time and requesting a POPLA code. Premier Park’s reply to my appeal stated that I could appeal to POPLA but I would “require the unique POPLA verification code which has previously been supplied to you.” The only correspondence I’d had from Premier was the NTK and this response to my appeal. Premier Park never supplied a POPLA code to me. They also stated “Please be advised that we have received previous correspondence regarding this PCN from MR ********”(owner of the flat on site).


Through the SAR I have the correspondence between the flat owner and Premier Park. Premier Park gave the flat owner a POPLA code in reply to the owner’s appeal to the windscreen ticket. The flat owner uses the phrase “we parked the car”


I really do want to take on BW Legal/Premier Park. I think I have been denied remediation and Premier Park are guilty of abusing the whole POFA process – I would argue the driver has been identified – but at what stage should I use this information. I would rather take them on and get the case struck out rather than land the flat owner a case to fight.


Should I say all this as a reply to the Letter of Claim or should I just get an extra 30 days and work on my defence? Many thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Coupon-mad

‘I’m seeking legal advice’ letter to gain another 30 days

No, not those words.

''I'm seeking DEBT advice'' buys 30 days!

Through the SAR I have the correspondence between the flat owner and Premier Park. Premier Park gave the flat owner a POPLA code in reply to the owner’s appeal to the windscreen ticket. The flat owner uses the phrase “we parked the car”

Importantly, did the flat owner who was driving, give their POSTAL ADDRESS or was this just email correspondence?

I would argue the driver has been identified – but at what stage should I use this information.

I would say that time is NOW, but then you added this:

I would rather take them on and get the case struck out rather than land the flat owner a case to fight.

OK then! Game on.

Why not just wait for the claim then fight it.

Supertato

Hi Coupon-mad



amazingly quick response!


The flat owner gave their postal address - it's been redacted but definately looks like an address.


Ok - I will send the letter saying I'm seeking debt advice and in the meantime put my defence together and await the claim.


Look forward to future conversations.



Best wishes



Supertato

Coupon-mad

You have a very strong defence as the law doesn't allow them to pursue you.

In fact, are you up for a counter-claim? I really think you should in your position as they had no reasonable cause to be storing and processing your data ever since they got the name & address of the driver, and their conduct in issuing a POPLA code to that driver, then reverting to trying to sue you, is grounds for compensation IMHO.

Read the pepipoo thread by Henry Hippo v UKPC (he had 2 threads there but only one was v UKPC). I helped with his counter claim, and he won. The wording is in that thread and you can work with that then we can fine tune it on here when you need to file it.

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Supertato

I'm definately up for anything that will get one up on these, what I believe to be, scammers but I'll have to do some further research on how to do a counter-claim.


I'll read around the case you mention - thanks for the info- and put together my defence.



I do have a slight concern as to whether a judge would consider the flat owner's statement 'we parked the car' as an admission of being the driver.


Best wishes

Supertato

The Deep - it's on my to do list. Write a letter to my MP - that is.


Best wishes

Coupon-mad

I do have a slight concern as to whether a judge would consider the flat owner's statement 'we parked the car' as an admission of being the driver.

There is NO DOUBT that his appeal identified him as the driver or the keeper of the car, within the meaning in the POFA.

And clearly the PPC agreed as they sent HIM a POPLA code, not you.

There is no doubt here that they had the name & address of the only liable party, and have no reasonable cause or excuse to revert to you and set up to sue you.

I urge you to do a Henry-Hippo stylee counter-claim!

Supertato

OK Coupon-Mad - I'm on it!

Supertato

[FONT=&quot]Hi Guys[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I'm posting my draft letter of response to BWL's LBA and would appreciate comments. It's mostly a re-hash of one of Coupon-Mad's letters. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I've been doing a lot of reading- particularly around Henry Hippo's case- and agree with Coupon-Mad's suggestion that I should do a counter-claim. That being so - should I mention the aspects of my case that I will use in my defence now - or hold fire until I get a claim from them?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]thanks in advance.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Dear Sirs,

Your client: ########## / account number ######### / ###########

You are continuing to bombard me with letters about this Parking charge notice, adding to the distress your client has already caused me by sending me numerous letters harassing me for payment.
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 review the data that your client produced in response to my SAR, none of which accompanied your template 'Letter of Claim'.

I reject your charge notice ###### for each and all of the reasons below, the substance of which I will use along with a counterclaim should you commence court proceedings.

This is a baseless claim and pure harassment of me, as the keeper of the vehicle, who has been denied access to remediation. You have obtained my details from the DVLA when you have no right to do so. Your client identified the driver and their current address for service. Your client has ridden roughshod over their own code of practice and breached the conditions for issuing a Notice to Keeper laid out in POFA 12 .

Estimated Claim

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' twice, 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 my 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) Be advised that I will issue a Counter Claim against your client if you issue a County Court claim against me.

How to get in touch
You may contact me by post or email after the 30 days has elapsed.
My address for service is:
xxxxxx

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,

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

I've been doing a lot of reading- particularly around Henry Hippo's case- and agree with Coupon-Mad's suggestion that I should do a counter-claim. That being so - should I mention the aspects of my case that I will use in my defence now - or hold fire until I get a claim from them?

Attach a separate Letter before Counter claim setting out why you are not liable and should have had your data erased, and how you intend to claim under the DPA for data misuse.