Bw legal letter of claim

beamerguy

reg76 said:

They want my phone number, email (which they obviously have) pcn number, make of car, registration, address and the name of the car park, all of this they have apart from my phone number 

Well you certainly don't give your phone number, these bods are phone junkie bullies

If they don't know which car park they are either being stupid or playing games. Tell them they already have the information and why are they being obstructive.
If they want to play games report them to the ICO to wake them up

Umkomaas

reg76 said:

They want my phone number, email (which they obviously have) pcn number, make of car, registration, address and the name of the car park, all of this they have apart from my phone number 

Is getting the information you want more important to you than providing the detail they need?  If not, carry on stubbornly stonewalling them. 

If they want a phone number, give them the Debt Recovery Plus number! 

beamerguy

Umkomaas said:

reg76 said:

They want my phone number, email (which they obviously have) pcn number, make of car, registration, address and the name of the car park, all of this they have apart from my phone number 

If they want a phone number, give them the Debt Recovery Plus number! 

Always an option.  When the OP gets through on the circus switchboard ..... ask for COCO

Coupon-mad

Ask them what data info they think they are missing and tell them no consumer has to provide a phone number to a PPC.  However, you will accept the SAR by post if they prefer not to email the data.

Umkomaas

beamerguy said:

Umkomaas said:

reg76 said:

They want my phone number, email (which they obviously have) pcn number, make of car, registration, address and the name of the car park, all of this they have apart from my phone number 

If they want a phone number, give them the Debt Recovery Plus number! 

Always an option.  When the OP gets through on the circus switchboard ..... ask for COCO

It won't be the OP phoning, it will be the PPC/BWL!

Snakes_Belly

Or give them the number of Dudley Zoo and tell them that your representative is Mr. C. Lyon

reg76

So do I continue to email or send via post (I don't want to waste the money on a stamp) 

Curlyben

BWL like to claim that they require your VRM to identify you, even after your name and address.
I had some fun giving old vehicles which throws them right off their script...

beamerguy

reg76 said:

So do I continue to email or send via post (I don't want to waste the money on a stamp) 

You email them, BWLegal are not worth a stamp .... as they normally respond with nonsensical rubbish, post any reply here.

reg76

This is the long awaited reply 

Whilst we appreciate that you may still hold the same position that you did on previous occasions, our client was within their rights to no longer issue legal action at the start of the Covid-19 crisis. Whilst they could have issued a claim form without giving you an opportunity to discuss the matter as one had already been issued, our client decided to reissue the Pre-Action Protocol letter to enable you to discuss this with us at the time that they were again considering legal action.

 

We have not issued these letters with different sums on them. The balance on this file has been £124.00 since 7 June 2019 and will remain that way until a claim is issued. If you are referring to our estimation of the relevant balance subsequent to a Judgment being issued against you, we have clearly noted that this is an estimation – we are not claiming any fees beyond what a judge would grant us.

 

We reject your assertion of harrassment. Our client is within their rights to pursue you for the balance in regards to this matter and as their legal representative, this also applies to us. We have made our position clear on multiple occasions. The driver overstayed at the site longer than the grace period and a Parking Charge Notice was therefore issued. You claim to have no case to answer, but your position in regards to this does not negate the liability that you have under Keeper liability which is allowed under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

In regards to your claim that we did not respond to your initial letter of claim, this is just not the case. We sent a long detailed response to your points that you yourself responded to. In response to this we noted your position and reaffirmed our own – which is a perfectly legitimate response. This was the last we heard from you until your recent correspondence. We would also note that your position in regards to our contact is not a relevant one – whether or not you received a letter from us in the 6 months between our last response and the first discount letter has no effect on your liability. Our client has the right to either pursue the matter or not for the entire period the balance is pursuable.

 

We note your decision to raise the matter to the ICO. We will be happy to liaise with them in regards to the matter if they choose to look into your complaint.

 

We will await instruction in regards to legal action.