CPMS - LETTER OF CLAIM RECEIVED UPDATE 2021 - FINAL WITNESS STATEMENT HELP

greengeko

Having now received a letter of claim I have decided to create my own thread in anticipation of an actual court claim being issued by BW legal - I understand that there will not be much to add at this stage but I hope to be as prepared as possible.

Help at any stage would be greatly appreciated.

Background

In July I (The keep of the vehicle) received a letter from "DRP Ltd" on behalf of CPMS regarding an unpaid parking charge (Not parked in marked bay) from May - totaling £160.

With a little digging it has come to light the driver of the vehicle at the time was attending a flat viewing at a residential flat complex (There is email confirmation of this). The driver was given entry by the estate agent and no comment was made regarding parking restrictions. No notice to driver was issued on the date in question. Nor was a subsequent notice to keeper sent to myself (To my knowledge).

In terms of signage - generally poor throughout. There is a sign on a pillar on the right hand side at the gate outside as you enter to the sum of "Parking restrictions apply within" and to read the signage within. There is a more detailed sign tucked away to the left on a pillar which is not noticeable if you drive in from that way. Having being back to the site there is no obvious signage around where the vehicle is recollected to have been parked.

As per the newbie thread I did not contact DRP but instead contacted CPMS (As the keeper of the vehicle) to clarify this matter asking for photos, proof of postage of the NTK etc. - My email was acknowledged but I never received a response.

A second letter arrived from "DRP Ltd" (Of intended court action) - again ignored and contacted CPMS essentially repeating my previous communication. This was again acknowledged and ignored.

Letter from BW legal (2/9/19) - attempted to contact them via email (Again essentially repeating my previous questions). Acknowledged but no response ever received.

Letter of claim (25/9/19) with deadline of 30/10/19 has now been received.

Have attempted speak to company who manage the buildings - Thoroughly unhelpful response and told there is nothing we can do.

In terms of action points now:
1) Submit SAR to CPMS
2) Contact BW legal an attempt to put them on hold (Unlikely to be successful) - Including point about seeking debt advice.

Any additional points?

I'll keep this thread updated when the inevitable court claim arrives.

Thanks again everyone.

greengeko

Sorry to bump so quickly but after some further reading I've noticed some users replying to this letter of claim with regard to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims etc.


For example in:
"BW legal - Letter of Claim (advice request and letter to check)" - by user Conky (Apologies I'm unable to post any links currently!)



My LoC is the same as this users.


Would there be any merit in responding to it in this manner?


Or is it simply going to be a case of sending a simple restriction of data processing/seeking debt management advice email to BW?


Really appreciate any input!

KeithP

I would suggest that sending 'a simple restriction of data processing/seeking debt management advice email to BW' is the way to go.

Remembering of course to send a Subject Access Request to CPMS's Data Protection Officer.

greengeko

Really appreciate the input thanks Keith - will stick to the basic response then.



I have sent an SAR to CPMS today.


I suppose now it's just a waiting game.

beamerguy

BWLegal still sending scam fake claims

The courts know all about this scam, that is why BWegal are getting spanked in court for ABUSE OF PROCESS

Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal
CLAIM STRUCK OUT

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

QUESTION TO BWLEGAL ...
On what authority do BWLegal have to circumvent the law POFA2012

SAME QUESTION TO A COURT

BWLegal have failed to answer about the authority they have

THEY DON'T so this is now your opportunity to enjoy seeing them spanked in court again and you claim your costs

greengeko

Hi all - just wanted to update regarding this matter.

I submitted my subject access request to CPMS and received the minimal information they have regarding the case (a photo of the vehicle with no signs around it and a screenshot of my data from their internal system). I also contacted BW Legal to advise them about this (predictably receiving a standard 'we're going to continue anyway' reply).

However I then have heard nothing from BW Legal/CPMS  (and thought this had been discontinued) until recently where I have received another 'Letter of Claim' (dated 9th September 2020).

My question is how would the members here suggest I proceed? I have previously sent the standard rebuttal as advised by the FAQ so have nothing more to say regarding that. My plan was to reply with the argument outlined by beamerguy in his thread 'BW LEGAL -- THE SCAM' (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6129744/bwlegal-the-scam/p1?new=1).

Would any one suggest any additional points? Thanks!

Coupon-mad

No don't do that.    Something of a waste of time.  Just do what the NEWBIES thread tells you for LBC stage.

AND - get ANGRY and GET EVEN about this scam! 

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have::

A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER:

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters and MUST GO.  Remove that layer and you remove the ‘drivers’ behind the race to court.

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

Responses into the PAS 232 and MHCLG framework documents are not completely straightforward:

On the MHCLG response, you have to answer the questions on a 1-5 scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then put some commentary. No way to upload documents or alternatives.

 

On the PAS 232, you have to click on each clause and sub-clause to put your comments, and a suggested rewording of their draft.  You can see comments which other people have written! 

 

But, when you click ‘submit’, a message pops up to say your comments have been received, but that only applies to the particular clause you have just addressed.

 

You have to click ‘submit’ separately for each individual clause response.

 

Some people will be caught out by this but can revisit it and add further responses up to 12 October.

 

 

greengeko

Coupon-mad said:

No don't do that.    Something of a waste of time.  Just do what the NEWBIES thread tells you for LBC stage.

AND - get ANGRY and GET EVEN about this scam! 

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have::

A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER:

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters and MUST GO.  Remove that layer and you remove the ‘drivers’ behind the race to court.

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

Responses into the PAS 232 and MHCLG framework documents are not completely straightforward:

On the MHCLG response, you have to answer the questions on a 1-5 scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then put some commentary. No way to upload documents or alternatives.

 

On the PAS 232, you have to click on each clause and sub-clause to put your comments, and a suggested rewording of their draft.  You can see comments which other people have written! 

 

But, when you click ‘submit’, a message pops up to say your comments have been received, but that only applies to the particular clause you have just addressed.

 

You have to click ‘submit’ separately for each individual clause response.

 

Some people will be caught out by this but can revisit it and add further responses up to 12 October.

 

 

Thanks for the input coupon-mad. So essentially that's nothing (as I have all ready followed the steps the first time) and just prep my defense for the inevitable claim.

EDIT - would it harm my defense in anyway even if I did send the beamerguy response?

I'll definitely read and comment on the draft CoP proposal!

Timeouts

greengeko said:

Coupon-mad said:

No don't do that.    Something of a waste of time.  Just do what the NEWBIES thread tells you for LBC stage.

AND - get ANGRY and GET EVEN about this scam! 

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have::

A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER:

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters and MUST GO.  Remove that layer and you remove the ‘drivers’ behind the race to court.

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

Responses into the PAS 232 and MHCLG framework documents are not completely straightforward:

On the MHCLG response, you have to answer the questions on a 1-5 scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then put some commentary. No way to upload documents or alternatives.

 

On the PAS 232, you have to click on each clause and sub-clause to put your comments, and a suggested rewording of their draft.  You can see comments which other people have written! 

 

But, when you click ‘submit’, a message pops up to say your comments have been received, but that only applies to the particular clause you have just addressed.

 

You have to click ‘submit’ separately for each individual clause response.

 

Some people will be caught out by this but can revisit it and add further responses up to 12 October.

 

 

Thanks for the input coupon-mad. So essentially that's nothing (as I have all ready followed the steps the first time) and just prep my defense for the inevitable claim.

EDIT - would it harm my defense in anyway even if I did send the beamerguy response?

I'll definitely read and comment on the draft CoP proposal!

No harm can be done but of course they will ignore you.   You can show a judge your attempt to resolve this matter which BWL ignored

Mind you, if you want a good laugh, hopefully BWL will reply

Coupon-mad

No harm done except I am fed up seeing people seem surprised when knocked back, and publish the reply that we have no need to read (spare us!) and then they ask for a 'next step' when it is all pointless.  Just time wasting.

greengeko

Hi all,

I have now received my letter of claim (Issued 20 Oct 2020).

I have completed my AOS today (1 Nov 2020).

Currently drafting my defense as outlined by coupon-mad in:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

I have some questions regarding  #2 and 3 if anyone could help.

1. As I am defending this as registered keeper of the vehicle can I talk about signage at the site or is this saved until later?
2. Additionally, as outlined above I never received the NTK and was only made aware of the alleged PCN via the debt recovery letters (Subsequently receiving no response from CPMS when I tried to contact them). The POFA act states that any notice posted is assumed delivered on the second working day after postage (which I can see from the SAR seems to either be the 21 or 22 May 2019 - however you can see in the attached image (taken from the SAR) that they seemingly have sent the NTK before receiving my details from the DVLA? But BW Legal of previously sent me a copy of the NTK which states 22 May 2019 as day of sending. Regardless I assume this is semantics (and probably just the way their system is displaying the information) and that I can't argue the point of CPMS not complying with the keeper liability requirements. So I'm a little unsure what to include in #3.
   

Could anyone chip in? Should I just highlight the seemingly poor signage?

EDIT - Additionally can I include information from the driver of the vehicle who tells me that they were buzzed into the building and told to park their by the letting agent? Or does admitting to knowing the identity of the driver have potential implications for liability etc.?