We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
BW Legal ticket from 2014!
05EVEREETA
Posts: 5 Forumite
Hello,
I have been sent multiple letters from BW Legal on behalf of PCN parking, threatening legal action for an unpaid ticket in 2014 that I have no recollection of.
I have looked at all threads and one helped me tremendously until our responses from BW Legal were different.
I am a little out of my depth now and unsure where I do stand legally. Any help would be greatly appreciated, the last response is under point 4. if you want to skip the interim communications. Thanks in advance!
What has happened so far:
1. I have received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal, saying they have been instructed to commence legal action in the form of issuing a claim against me in the County Court if I do not pay within 14 days (this was well over 14 days ago now)
2. I responded asking for photographs - in which they did send to me with the sign saying parking only valid with a permit and that should be enough evidence to pay the ticket.
3. Them I responded with the following (from another thread) slightly tweaked to suit my circumstances but arguing that I could not be charged as the 'keeper of t he vehicle' as there is no proof who was driving it.
Dear BW Legal,
Firstly I would like to state that the address you are contacting me on is no longer my place of residence. So please stop sending letters to XXXXXXXX
I am fully aware that BW Legal were 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary debate where MPs unanimously clamoured to expose rogue parking firms and their 'cosy relationship' with firms like BW Legal making a mint from their clients' rogue ticketing and unfair fining. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines and aggressive demands for payment have no place in the 21st century and companies like yourself are an absolute disgrace.!!!
I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. 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 (for how long was the vehicle parked there, 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. 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).
It is important that you now stop contacting me pretending you are wanting to 'help' discuss an ''affordable payment arrangement'' for a debt that does not exist. How can you demand that I complete details of my income and expenditure, for a fake charge from a notorious ex-clamper, propped up by you, a shameful robo-claim legal firm who were named and shamed in Parliament.
I will assume your response, so to save you the time and energy
1. Our Client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date of the contravention.
2. Our Client does not intend to rely on The Protection of Freedoms Act ("POFA"). Instructions were provided on the PCN on how to proceed if you were not the driver at the time the contravention occurred.
As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, Our Client, in the absence of the driver's details, reasonably presumes that you were the driver and we refer you the recent Court of Appeal case of Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453.''
May I quote Elliot vs Loake, I am sure you are more than accustomed to this case. Need I say no more.
Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd has no application in a case that does not involve employer/employee vicarious liability and has been debunked in dozens of Excel/VCS cases, as you well know. I refer you to Launchbury v Morgans (1972), a case heard in the House of Lords.
This continued contact and demands for money from a person who is not liable in law, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the constant bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.
This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.
I repeat - you know I am not liable in law. Outwith the POFA, there is no 'keeper liability'.
Stop writing misleading letters. Stop writing any letters. Your client has no cause of action against me and must take it up with the driver, and should have done so in a timely manner, establishing on the day who that party was, if they felt there was a parking charge due.
Take formal note, and tell your clients: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. You and your client must now stop processing my data and delete it from your records after cancelling the meritless 'charge' you are chasing, to my huge distress.
If your client proceeds to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum your client is unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a regular basis, as evidence to support my position. The unwelcome and detrimental effect of this continual battle is unnecessary and causing me distress.
I am aware of the following two cases in the past:
- on Friday 16th March 2018, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his £500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.
- in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded £900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant (same as your client's NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall (mirroring the conduct of BW Legal's robo-claim modus operandi) had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from £100 to £300 by adding spurious amounts.
Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.
I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you and your clients.
4. They responded with the following, which is where it deviates from the response another lady got where they asked for evidence of illness and dismissed the case back to PCN. I am a little out of my depth now and unsure where I do stand legally. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Good Morning
Our client’s position is that on the day of the contravention, you parked your vehicle and clearly failed to display a valid parking permit.
As a result of the breach, Our Client is well within their contractual rights to issue the PCN and take all necessary steps (including bringing legal proceedings) to recover the outstanding charge. As the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, and given that you had not provided Our Client with the full name and serviceable address of the driver within 28 days from the date of the PCN, Our Client is able to hold you liable for the unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Please note that Our Client will not accept a settlement for this Account, therefore the Outstanding Balance remains Due and Owing.
We trust this now concludes any outstanding queries you had raised with ourselves. It is important that you now contact us in order to discuss an affordable payment arrangement. Should you not wish to arrange and affordable repayment plan for this Outstanding Balance, we strongly recommend that you seek your own independent legal advice
I have been sent multiple letters from BW Legal on behalf of PCN parking, threatening legal action for an unpaid ticket in 2014 that I have no recollection of.
I have looked at all threads and one helped me tremendously until our responses from BW Legal were different.
I am a little out of my depth now and unsure where I do stand legally. Any help would be greatly appreciated, the last response is under point 4. if you want to skip the interim communications. Thanks in advance!
What has happened so far:
1. I have received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal, saying they have been instructed to commence legal action in the form of issuing a claim against me in the County Court if I do not pay within 14 days (this was well over 14 days ago now)
2. I responded asking for photographs - in which they did send to me with the sign saying parking only valid with a permit and that should be enough evidence to pay the ticket.
3. Them I responded with the following (from another thread) slightly tweaked to suit my circumstances but arguing that I could not be charged as the 'keeper of t he vehicle' as there is no proof who was driving it.
Dear BW Legal,
Firstly I would like to state that the address you are contacting me on is no longer my place of residence. So please stop sending letters to XXXXXXXX
I am fully aware that BW Legal were 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary debate where MPs unanimously clamoured to expose rogue parking firms and their 'cosy relationship' with firms like BW Legal making a mint from their clients' rogue ticketing and unfair fining. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines and aggressive demands for payment have no place in the 21st century and companies like yourself are an absolute disgrace.!!!
I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. 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 (for how long was the vehicle parked there, 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. 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).
It is important that you now stop contacting me pretending you are wanting to 'help' discuss an ''affordable payment arrangement'' for a debt that does not exist. How can you demand that I complete details of my income and expenditure, for a fake charge from a notorious ex-clamper, propped up by you, a shameful robo-claim legal firm who were named and shamed in Parliament.
I will assume your response, so to save you the time and energy
1. Our Client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date of the contravention.
2. Our Client does not intend to rely on The Protection of Freedoms Act ("POFA"). Instructions were provided on the PCN on how to proceed if you were not the driver at the time the contravention occurred.
As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, Our Client, in the absence of the driver's details, reasonably presumes that you were the driver and we refer you the recent Court of Appeal case of Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453.''
May I quote Elliot vs Loake, I am sure you are more than accustomed to this case. Need I say no more.
Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd has no application in a case that does not involve employer/employee vicarious liability and has been debunked in dozens of Excel/VCS cases, as you well know. I refer you to Launchbury v Morgans (1972), a case heard in the House of Lords.
This continued contact and demands for money from a person who is not liable in law, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the constant bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.
This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.
I repeat - you know I am not liable in law. Outwith the POFA, there is no 'keeper liability'.
Stop writing misleading letters. Stop writing any letters. Your client has no cause of action against me and must take it up with the driver, and should have done so in a timely manner, establishing on the day who that party was, if they felt there was a parking charge due.
Take formal note, and tell your clients: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. You and your client must now stop processing my data and delete it from your records after cancelling the meritless 'charge' you are chasing, to my huge distress.
If your client proceeds to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum your client is unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a regular basis, as evidence to support my position. The unwelcome and detrimental effect of this continual battle is unnecessary and causing me distress.
I am aware of the following two cases in the past:
- on Friday 16th March 2018, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his £500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.
- in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded £900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant (same as your client's NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall (mirroring the conduct of BW Legal's robo-claim modus operandi) had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from £100 to £300 by adding spurious amounts.
Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.
I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you and your clients.
4. They responded with the following, which is where it deviates from the response another lady got where they asked for evidence of illness and dismissed the case back to PCN. I am a little out of my depth now and unsure where I do stand legally. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Good Morning
Our client’s position is that on the day of the contravention, you parked your vehicle and clearly failed to display a valid parking permit.
As a result of the breach, Our Client is well within their contractual rights to issue the PCN and take all necessary steps (including bringing legal proceedings) to recover the outstanding charge. As the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, and given that you had not provided Our Client with the full name and serviceable address of the driver within 28 days from the date of the PCN, Our Client is able to hold you liable for the unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Please note that Our Client will not accept a settlement for this Account, therefore the Outstanding Balance remains Due and Owing.
We trust this now concludes any outstanding queries you had raised with ourselves. It is important that you now contact us in order to discuss an affordable payment arrangement. Should you not wish to arrange and affordable repayment plan for this Outstanding Balance, we strongly recommend that you seek your own independent legal advice
0
Comments
-
please confirm the actual name and address of the parking company who instructed B W LEGAL
Email a SAR to the DPO at this parking company to get all the docs , pics and data they hold about you0 -
I am a little out of my depth now and unsure where I do stand legally.
Keep reading the stickies until they become clearer.
Legally they are claiming that you breached a contract and they have invoiced you for the damage they allege they have suffered as a result. Until a judge says so in a County Court, the so-called debt is unproven, and you do not owe them a penny.
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, (threats, falsehood, and legal jargon), 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.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Our Client is able to hold you liable for the unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Please note that Our Client will not accept a settlement for this Account, therefore the Outstanding Balance remains Due and Owing.
We trust this now concludes any outstanding queries you had raised with ourselves. It is important that you now contact us in order to discuss an affordable payment arrangement. Should you not wish to arrange and affordable repayment plan for this Outstanding Balance, we strongly recommend that you seek your own independent legal advice
I assume that BWLegal has added a fake £60 to the claim.
The courts have said this is ABUSE OF PROCESS ... READ THIS
Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal
They are quoting POFA 2012 that they reply upon.
What they have not told you is ......
"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 "
Hence such claims are dismissed as ABUSE OF PROCESS ??
They recommend you seek your own legal advice ??? WHY, you will get all the help you need here.
It should be suggested that they themselves seek legal advice with regards to their fake add-on and their abuse of the public and the courts0 -
Hello RedX
The company was Premier Park Limited which was at a building called Marketgate.
Premier Park Limited address on the website appears to be
Queensgate House, 48 Queen St, Exeter EX4 3SR.
They have provided me with photographs of the car and the sign and usual personal details, but no proof of who was driving the car.
Should I still request them?
Thanks
Alice0 -
Hey BeamerGuy
Thanks for your message.
Sorry, do you mean that just the inflated charges from BW Legal should not be paid but the parking fine should?
Currently, the charge is £160 then with the threat of court fees etc in the Letter of claim I received before sending the response posted on this thread.
I am still confused.
Thanks
Alice0 -
05EVEREETA wrote: »Hey BeamerGuy
Thanks for your message.
Sorry, do you mean that just the inflated charges from BW Legal should not be paid but the parking fine should?
Currently, the charge is £160 then with the threat of court fees etc in the Letter of claim I received before sending the response posted on this thread.
I am still confused.
Thanks
Alice
You do not pay anything unless a judge directs you to do so.
At this point, you concentrate on ABUSE OF PROCESS and ask the court to dismiss the case due to:
1: Abuse of process which you can read here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal
PLEASE READ POST #14 ON THIS THREAD BY COUPON-MAD
which you use in it's entirety
2: The fake add-on will be against the courts rules of double recovery0 -
Have you complained to your MP yet?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards