BW Legal & Total Parking Solutions Ltd - Letter of Claim received

jeremiahjingle

Hi Everyone
Thought I'd post a thread on this so that I can keep you guys up to date.

I've received a letter of claim from BW Legal representing Total Parking Solutions for an alleged debt that took place over 4 years ago in 2015.

The contravention description is: The Driver Was Observed Leaving Site Whilst The Vehicle Remained Parked On The Premises

I don't remember receiving anything from that time, be it a windscreen ticket anywhere or a PCN through the post. I've also received no LBC, just a LOC.
I have re-read the newbies thread - at this stage, can i just clarify that i need that I need to send:
1) Rebuttal letter to BW Legal (or would this be TPS?)
2) SAR requests to both BW Legal and TPS

Many thanks.

The_Deep

The second such today, see

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76042516#Comment_76042516

jeremiahjingle

Thanks - just has a quick read through, will keep an eye on it.
To the best of my knowledge, this LOC is the first time I've heard about this PCN over 4 years after the date they're claiming. I've not had the usual barrage of debt collector letters.
Shouldn't they have sent a LBC beforehand? Seems unusual (or maybe it's not) that a LOC is te first time I'm hearing about this.

beamerguy

The Driver Was Observed Leaving Site Whilst The Vehicle Remained Parked On The Premises

OK TPS, pictures to prove your claim please

Assume BWLegal has added their usual scam fake £60 add-on ?
Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

BWLegal are still taking on rubbish claims

jeremiahjingle

@beamerguy is it worth asking TPS to provide pictures, and if so, should this be in the rebuttal or SAR? (or both!).
The BW Legal letter says £25 "Estimated Court Fees" and £50 "Estimated Solicitors' Costs"

beamerguy

jeremiahjingle wrote: »

@beamerguy is it worth asking TPS to provide pictures, and if so, should this be in the rebuttal or SAR? (or both!).
The BW Legal letter says £25 "Estimated Court Fees" and £50 "Estimated Solicitors' Costs"

TPS has tried this wheeze before and could not provide pictures so it was a case of their warden appearing in court to tell the court the truth, that never happened either

Are you sure that the £60 has not been added IE ticket - £160

SAR them for proof and request BWLegal prove their claim

Big_Boi

jeremiahjingle wrote: »

Shouldn't they have sent a LBC beforehand? Seems unusual (or maybe it's not) that a LOC is te first time I'm hearing about this.

A LOC is a LBC. BW Legal call it LOC, whereas others call it LBC, but they are the same. It is the 'final demand' before the actual Claim Form from the CCBC comes through.

Ignore the financial phishing forms they have provided.

jeremiahjingle

beamerguy wrote: »

TPS has tried this wheeze before and could not provide pictures so it was a case of their warden appearing in court to tell the court the truth, that never happened either

Are you sure that the £60 has not been added IE ticket - £160

SAR them for proof and request BWLegal prove their claim

Ah, i see. I wonder if the same warden even works for them....and if so, how he would remember one particular vehicle from years ago is beyond me.

One the costs side on the LOC, the 'Balance Due' is £124
This is broken down as:
'Principal Debt + Initial Legal Costs £124
Estimated Interest £23
Estimated Court Costs £25
Estimated Solicitors Costs £50
Total £222
No idea how much the original PCN was I've never received one.
I'm requesting photographic evidence in the SAR to TPS - do i need to draw explicit reference to BWL legal proving their claim in the rebuttal?
Has much changed in the last 6 months? I'm drawing on a previous SAR & rebuttal from December last year which I'll post up here.

The_Deep

jeremiahjingle wrote: »

@beamerguy is it worth asking TPS to provide pictures, … "

He is asking you to ask them to provide pictures of the driver leaving site. Absolutely essential imo.

jeremiahjingle

TPS SAR

Data Protection Officer
Total Parking Solutions Limited
3 Kings Court
Kettering Venture Park
Kettering
NN15 6WJ

15th July 2019

Dear Data Protection Officer

Subject Access Request (Data Protection Act 2018 / General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR))

Please supply me the data about me that I am entitled to for free under data protection law relating to myself.

Please can you provide the following:

• all data held
• all evidence you Total Parking Solutions intend to use against me (to include- a copy of the contract with the landowner under which you assert authority to bring a claim against me, a copy of the alleged contract with the driver, a plan showing where the signs were displayed, details of the signs displayed).
• all letters/emails sent and received (including your correspondence with the DVLA to obtain my personal details and any appeal correspondence).
• a full copy all parking charge notices
• all photos taken (including by ANPR)
• a list of all PCNs you consider are outstanding
• a close up of the signage at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/15.
• evidence you have paid a debt collector
If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this email to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant staff member. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113.

Yours faithfully

Does this look okay for SAR to TPS?

and REBUTTAL LETTER TO BWL also requesting hold on further data processing

BW Legal
Enterprise House
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS11 9BH
15th July 2019
Your Reference: T1102655 / Account Number MT31625218
Dear BW Legal,
Thank you for your letter of claim dated 17th June 2019.
I contest that I was not the driver of the vehicle in question. Furthermore, I do not know who the driver was in relation to the alleged ‘contravention’ that happened over four years ago as per the date stated in your letter of claim.
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide any photographic evidence. 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.
This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.
Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction.
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) on the date in question as detailed in your letter of claim
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.
Please note my current service address at the top of this letter.
I have also enclosed a Subject Access Request (SAR) which I require BW Legal to action. A separate SAR has also been sent to your client, Total Parking Solutions Ltd. I am requesting that you restrict data processing for a period of 30 days, in light of the SAR being processed as I have a clear need to have a reasonable period of time to be able to consider the data, documents and photos that will subsequently be provided.

Yours faithfully,
_____________________________________________________________

If these still look okay, I'll get them sent off today.

Coupon-mad

Don't send a rebuttal like that to BW Legal. You don't see that ancient old 2017 template linked in the NEWBIES thread, do you? If you do, I must delete it.

Just WAIT a week after sending the SAR, then tell BW Legal by email you are getting a SAR, that you are aware that TPS has no photo or other evidence whatsoever of any driver leaving any defined 'site' and as such you deny any debt, but that you require them to note that you are seeking debt advice.

Those last 3 magic words get you 30 days on hold. That's why to leave a week in between so the SAR is in with Tito, and the clock ticks on that, first.