LBC from BWL via Premier Parking. OLD TICKET from 2014 (I've read newbie section)

HistoricalTicket

Hi all

So I've read the NEWBIES section and believe I need to post to gain advice for the stage I'm at.

Little bit of background story, I received a letter from BWL via PPS recently on 10th June about a PCN in a private residents permit holders only car park.My vehicle was parked there and there was a valid permit (at the time) in the car. On that occasion, the permit wasn't secure in the windscreen (it had fallen in the passenger foot well).

The first letter I received from BWL was immediately a LBC. They sent it through to my previous address but luckily I have a Royal Mail Redirect on. I have responded to this using an online template which I will show you below.

I can't post links as I'm new so copied the text here:
BW legal
Enterprise House
Apex View
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS11 9BH

03/07/2019
Your Ref: Txxxxxx

Dear Sirs,
I am in receipt of your Letter of Claim of 10th June 2019.
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

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 lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 6 and 7) 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.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind 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. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.



Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.
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 vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
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. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added

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) ; 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 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
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.
Lastly, any claim is ONLY to be served to my correct address for service, which is:

My current address listed here

Yours faithfully
(My name and signature)

Following this, I have since received another letter from BWL giving me a point by point breakdown (although they claim the client doesn't have to supply some of the information requested). The ignored the last part of my letter advising all correspondence must be sent to my service address as this too was redirected!

I am looking to write back to them now, I feel my main angle to get rid of this charge is lack of evidence as the photographs taken of the vehicle with the timestamps only show a dark dashboard up close, the rear side aspect of my car and a blurry image of the signage. Again I cannot post pictures due to being new to the forum.

Can you advise the best way to respond to them? I received the letter on the 13th, it's dated the 9th and states I must respond within 14 days. I'd also prefer to email them if that's OK without causing myself future grief?

Thanks in advance
HistoricalTicket

Coupon-mad

The ignored the last part of my letter advising all correspondence must be sent to my service address as this too was redirected!

You MUST report them to the Information Commissioner online.

Email BW Legal and tell them you have done so, and ask if perhaps they need to seek independent legal advice to recognise a consumer's right to rectification of address data under the GDPR, or will they wait for the ICO to educate them?

This is REALLY important to press home. They cannot do this!

No asking for their email addy...any poster should realise how to find it here.

HistoricalTicket

I will do, should I also mention about the fact the pictures provided of their "evidence" no permit was displayed on the dashboard is impossible to submit in court, as it bears no formal identification of my particular vehicle at the time?

Quentin

If you still don't want to reveal the driver you need to edit your OP to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use posts in your thread against you in Court

HistoricalTicket

Quentin wrote: »

If you still don't want to reveal the driver you need to edit your OP to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use posts in your thread against you in Court

Which bit do I need to remove please? I thought I'd been careful enough not to disclose who was driving.

Quentin

Read the third paragraph!

HistoricalTicket

Is deleting the end to that paragraph what you were referring too?

I thought I was as long as I did not confirm a name. Sorry this is my first (and hopefully last battle with BWL).

KeithP

The second and third sentences in your paragraph beginning "Little bit of background story..." would perhaps be better written as:

The vehicle was parked there as a friend of the driver lived at a property in the complex, and the driver did have his permit (at the time). What the driver had failed to do on that occasion, is secure it securely in the windscreen (it had fallen in the passenger foot well).

There is no place for the word 'I' when describing events on the day.

HistoricalTicket

Complaint to ICO sent now to end the night on a high and email BWL to advise them of that!

Quentin

Yes, you need to edit the third paragraph in the post.

Use the third party to describe what happened

As in "the driver did this"/"the keeper did that,"

HistoricalTicket

Quentin wrote: »

Yes, you need to edit the third paragraph in the post.

Use the third party to describe what happened

As in "the driver did this"/"the keeper did that,"

Thanks all, now edited as per your guidance.

I am emailing BWL now to advise them of the raised complaint to ICO but should I challenge the evidence and ticket as well in this email?