BW legal - Letter of Claim (advice request and letter to check)

Molts

Our Client does intend to rely Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Then they need to abide by its strict terms, namely:

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(5) The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

Search the forum for the well documented "abuse of process".

Regarding point 8 - is this lawful, the vehicle that this alleged charge relates to was never registered at my new address.

Yes - although ultimately better to receive the nonsense they send you rather than walk blindly into a default judgement.

Any assistance with a written response would be gratefully received.

I'm not sure this requires one, they just want the cash, although wait for more experienced advice before taking that as gospel.

KeithP

As Molts says, no reply needed.

Wait patiently for a County Court Claim Form to drop through your letter-box.

When that happens, post again on this thread with the Issue Date from the Claim Form.

beamerguy

It is irrelevant whether or not the charge as displayed bears any relation to the cost for parking (even where there is no cost involved). Our Client relies on the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that Parking Charge Notice charges, like this charge, serve a legitimate commercial interest. The relevant car parking Codes of Practice, also give guidance that £100.00 is a reasonable sum to charge.

Interesting .... If their client is to rely on the Beavis case for the charge, that's fine, but within the ruling from the Supreme court it clearly states ....
98. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''
....... did the Supreme court mention costs are included or did BWLegal think the costs are not included ???. WHOOPS the Supreme court is the leading authority saying all costs are included ????


such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.
So odd to even think this, the IPC code of practice is for parking companies who are members ONLY, and in an unregulated industry there is no legal standing for the code of practice for the motorist

The conclusion is that BWLegal practice ABUSE OF PROCESS so in a claim, you use coupon-mad's post #14 of this thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal