Bw legal letter of claim

Coupon-mad

Yes.

Re-read the red heading 'IMPORTANT- KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' info in the 2nd post of the Newbies thread which covers everything, including why not to agree to Mediation (in the current climate for existing parking cases).


NB to the regulars about plans for 'Compulsory Mediation' reform: 
We need to bear in mind this 'No to Mediation' stance may have to change quickly, as we adapt once the new Code of Practice is implemented and eventually in stone and/or if the Courts get their wish from a recent public consultation, to make ADR compulsory:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Civil-Justice-Council-Compulsory-ADR-report.pdf

Luckily, the two reforms are happening at or around the same time - i.e. a new private parking appeals service is being set up in 2022/23, coinciding pretty much with the CJC's recommendations about compulsory ADR, and I happen to know that *someone* told the DLUHC, aiming for some joined-up thinking.

KeithP

reg76 said:

I've also received a similar questionnaire from BW legal,  
Trying to persuade me to go to mediation, I take it I ignore that one? 

Yes, just as you are required to send your completed DQ to both the court and the claimant, they too must send theirs to both the court and the defendant.

reg76

So I've recieved a very nice letter from BW legal claiming my defence is irrelevant because its been copy and pasted and I should withdraw my defence and pay in full 😂

patient_dream

reg76 said:

So I've recieved a very nice letter from BW legal claiming my defence is irrelevant because its been copy and pasted and I should withdraw my defence and pay in full 😂

NO SURPRISE THEN ........ that statement is BWLegal's version of copy and paste along side their usual WS copy and paste ??
TAKE NO NOTICE of desperation

What BWLegal say is nonsensical and a judge will take no notice and just makes BWL look stupid.

One famous copy and paste from BWL is the fake add-on which of course in the NEW  government code of practice is now BANNED.  A judge will be more interested in that

The fake add-on is a very feeble way by BWL OF DOUBLE RECOVERY which is abuse of process.   And remember, they must sign the claim giving a statement of truth ?

Coupon-mad

reg76 said:

So I've recieved a very nice letter from BW legal claiming my defence is irrelevant because its been copy and pasted and I should withdraw my defence and pay in full 😂

As usual!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79046505/#Comment_79046505

Not content with accusing you of making a 'false statement' they later go on to rant in their standard (template) WS about people daring to use a template from MSE and they quote from me from this forum.

But I've changed the template now so they'll have to go swivel.

Honestly, the robo-claim legals need to go back to other gutter 'debts' and leave the parking operators to pick up the pieces of the ruins caused by the greed of the aggressive parasite legals and DRAs.

I wonder if either APA realises that it was trying to support the greed of both the operators and the DRAs that caused all this?  The Code of Practice would IMHO never have been so robust if they hadn't all aligned to fix £70 false 'fees' which is objectionable and extortionate.

Obviously the IPC came to the party as Gladstones, so the writing was on the wall about that APA allegedly 'wearing two hats', but the BPA should IMHO have never tried to support the demands of both.

Big and expensive error, long term and the DVLA could have put a stop to it by being more robust about how data can be used.  As I see it, the DVLA could have restated the POFA 'cap' maximum sum and refused permission for data to be used for increased demands.

DVLA have been appallingly lax,  IMHO, and far too close to the APAs.

What goes around, comes around.

But of course, with Roxburghe then ZZPS' Gary Osner on the BPA Board (who says he invented the 'false fees' model, and was was acclaimed with a long service award in parking this year even though he's never worked in parking), and by appointing a bailiff as their President, the BPA labours under the same conflict of interests as the IPC.

To any PPC reading this:

Do you and your fellow operators realise that your industry are sitting on hundreds of millions of pounds that the DRA lot have PREVENTED you from collecting by adding their fake £70?

Most motorists would have long since paid you, if you'd done what the new Code now tells you to do, and carried out a soft trace (costs you from 29 pence in bulk, or about £3.50 if you ask a DRA to do it for you on a 'not free' middleman basis) then re-issued your PCN instead of more than tripling it.

A huge payday awaits the first PPC to send motorists with old unpaid PCNs an 'amnesty' letter, saying they are re-issuing the PCN as a goodwill gesture because they realise that the last couple of years have been difficult and motoring costs are now soaring, so rather than aggressively pursue the old PCN they are prepared to settle it at the original rate/discount, or consider any genuine dispute, applying the spirit of the new Appeals Charter.

Literally millions will be paid.

Obviously those who stand to make the most are those PPCs who've not really been litigious at all, or recently.  e.g.  MET, APCOA, even UKCPS and certainly the smaller operators.  The likes of MET and APCOA - large but non-litigious - are undoubtedly sitting on millions in uncollected PCNs going back years, and it doesn't take aggressive threats to turn those into money. 

And their reputation will improve (slowly, but definitely) along with their bank balance.

Showing in pitches that they are ethical, pragmatic and less aggressive than your average PPC but still collect on xx% of PCNs (and consider late appeals before they actually have to under the new Code) must be attractive to landowners and will put AOS members in the strongest position to pitch for new sites, showing real evidence of fairness and thinking outside of the DRA box.

But can the operators see that the DRAs were the problem?

I'd be interested in the thoughts of @AnotherForumite or @Thrugelmir

reg76

Hi all so I have finally recieved notice of a court date (I requested my own local court)  I just need to read through and sort out my documents. 
Obviously any advice would be appreciated 
At least it's about to come to an end finally 

Le_Kirk

Don't miss your deadline for submitting witness statement, evidence and summary costs assessment to file (on the court) and serve (on the claimant).

Umkomaas

The NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and in particular @bargepole's 'IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT YOU MUST DO AND BY WHEN!' will guide your next steps in the process. 

reg76

I've been sorting all the paper work to start my witness statement and I've noted that the amount "demanded" differs all over the place, on the actual court claim it is £90.22 "being due from the defendant in respect of a parking charge notice" this inflates to 144.22 with a £35 Court fee and £50 legal representative fee. 
The original pcn was £70 plus £54 debt recovery cost 
The 3 letters before claim are all for different amounts and the reason for one of the costs is different on one of them. 
Then I've got a few more letters with £229 as the amount demanded. 
Any advice on this before I start writing up my statement 

Johnersh

Hang on.... So the total amounts claimed on the claim form (even after court and advocacy fees are added) are less than they sought in correspondence?

The original PCN probably offered a discount for prompt payment. Certainly the claimant cannot claim amounts in excess of that permitted by contract. 

One might suggest that their misguided approach to debt collection actively precluded settlement