Bw legal letter of claim

reg76

Evening all, apologies if a new thread is the wrong way to do this but I was getting flustered trying to find the right one to reply to and I don't have much time. I've received the lbc from bw legal and long story short this is my potential response. If someone more knowledgeable than I could have a nosey before I post it I would be grateful. My response needs to be in by 20th sep
Thanks

Dear BW legal
Having received yet another letter of harassment from yourselves I now write in response to your ridiculous letter of claim.
I will now appraise you of the following details.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question DA 68 VFX. At no time has the identity of the driver been ascertained.
Your letter dated 12/6 /19 states “as you have failed to make payment or raise an appeal “. This is a lie, an appeal was raised in good time and the standard refusal letter was received dated 22/3/19.
As instructed by your client in a letter dated 12/6/19 I diverted all contact to yourselves only to receive between 19/27 June no less than 6 emails demanding my personal information including my phone number for “data protection”. Since you already have my valid details I can only assume that this was an attempt to aquire my phone number with which to further harass me as it is not required for data protection at all. Only when my emails became more robust did you eventually enter dialogue with me.
In your email dated 1/7/19 you state “as your vehicle was observed for 2 hours and 16 minutes you were in breach the terms and conditions”. How was the vehicle observed and by whom and how as the registered keeper am I in breach of the conditions and not the alleged driver?.
In your email dated 26/6/19 you state your client “uses ANPR to record registrations of vehicles entering and exiting the car park then cross references this against data extracted from parking machines and other cashless payment methods”. Please explain where these machines are and inform me as to how the ANPR are able to monitor the exact time of stay when they only face the entrance/exit
I have received information after making my SAR to your client as you have continued to evade or completely ignore my requests for relevant information in my case instead choosing to continue the harassment with threats of CCJs.
As previously stated ANPR only record vehicles entering and leaving the site not the length of parking.
I require a breakdown of the £54 “legal” costs and the reason you feel able to ignore current legislation and claim them in County Court. This as I know you are aware is a clear abuse of process and I will draw the judges attention case FODP 201I. District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court 10/7/19.
Your clients signage regardless of whether you say conform to BPA guidelines are not positioned properly at all. Having visited the site I can confirm they can not be read from inside a vehicle as the writing is too small and the base of the signs some 7 to 8 feet in the air. One has to stand directly under a sign to read the vague terms and conditions. There are no signs at the entrance at all and the one reflective sign inside on the roadway is dangerously positioned on a bend and is a risk to drivers arriving into the car park.(as previously stated and ignored) This has been reported to my local authority and MP.
Also on your clients signs it states “regular inspections carried out” please provide me with proof of these inspections being carried out by uniformed TPS staff on disabled bays, vehicles parked over white lines and hatchings, vehicles overstaying and drivers not using the premises because of your client is only relying on ANPR to single out drivers entering and leaving then this is clear discrimination against those persons it can catch out for profit.
I further request proof of your clients authority to operate at the site as I have now ascertained the land owner via land registry despite your clients refusal to inform me.
You continue to quote Parking Eye VS Beavis in an attempt to intimidate me even though it bears no relevance to mine and many other cases
The fact remains that your client TPS are in breach of their own terms and conditions as they have zero staff on site and never have. Therefore vehicles cannot be monitored to enforce the rules laid down in the signage length of parking cannot be accurately judged only between entering and leaving the site.
The alleged overstay was 16 minutes. Taking away the mandatory 10 minutes grace period leaves 6 minutes. Factoring in arrival (first picture) locating a space in a fairly busy town centre car park, getting back into the vehicle, manoeuvring out of the space, negotiating the one way system and queueing to leave at a busy junction it can reasonably be assumed that no alleged overstay occurred
There is no case to answer here however I fully expect you to ignore this letter and I am more than ready to attend my local court to defend myself.
I will be attaching my own cost breakdown of not more than £95
I expect your timely response
Warmest regards

KeithP

I will be attaching my own cost breakdown of not more than £95

Leave out that sentence. You are unnecessarily restricting your self.

1505grandad

And remove any personal ID like your VRM

beamerguy

Please don't sign of with Warmest regards, BWLegal affiliate themselves with scammers and do not deserve friendly verse

Dear Sirs and yours faithfully is the only way.

What sort of reply you get from them, if any, will probably be their usual copy and paste which they are famous for. In other words utter ignorance.

It seems that they only understand being spanked in court after sending a rookie hired legal with no clue

Do let us know what the reply is

reg76

Thanks guys I will amend and post tomorrow,

reg76

Hi all so I've had a reply and it's a belter, as soon as I find out how to attach it on here I will

KeithP

Upload the image to a free webhosting site, imgur is one but there are others, then post a link here.

reg76

http://imgur.com/a/tcHaryi

Right hopefully this works

Coupon-mad

All as expected and a claim is inevitable from this robo-claim sausage machine.

Not sure what they are on about in #4 about the 'act of not parking' as it makes no sense! And where they talk about the 'relevant code of practice' allowing them to add £54, if the PCN was pre-Jan 2018 then the previous BPA CoP version applies and so the answer to that is ''oh no it didn't''!

I love the way they patronisingly explain Beavis to you. Why not reply patronisingly explaining Beavis back at them about the fact that the costs of 'recovery' letters and time is already included in the parking charge. Point them to para 98 and 198 of Beavis.

And definitely tell them that consumers are not their 'customers' and they need to FRO.

reg76

I like the fact that seeing as they have never set foot in my town the can tell me when it is busy or not

The_Deep

I like the fact that seeing as they have never set foot in my town the can tell me when it is busy or not

A logical fallacy surely?

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

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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