LBC received from BW Legal

on.wheels

Hi everyone,

I have received a LBC from BW Legal acting on behalf of Armtrac services. I parked in`a car park in Cornwall back in May, paid the fee and returned well before it expired to find a PCN on my windscreen and the ticket upside down on the dashboard.

I naively appealed, thinking they would cancel the PCN, giving them my information (I was the driver but not registered keeper) which they insisted they needed before accepting my appeal, and then following rejection also appealed to the IAS. During this appeal I discovered (all too late) this fantastic forum and stopped all communication. I, of course, received notification that my IAS appeal had been dismissed and over the following months received all kinds of letters demanding money. All duly ignored.

I have until the 29th November to respond before they issue a claim through the county court. I’ll request a SAR from Amtrac but will also send an email to BW Legal.

In the LBC, they mention the Civil Procedure Rules Pre-Action Protocol referring “in particular to paragraph 7, which sets out the expectations of the court in terms of complying with the protocol”. This protocol states “The debtor should use the Reply Form in Annex 1 for their response.” This contradicts the newbies thread which says to NOT use the reply forms. Which should I do?

Here’s my planned response to BW Legal’s LBC. Should I be including all this at this stage or should I hold back most ready for a court defence? I also have more arguments than I’ve stated below, too.

Thanks in advance for any help, which is most appreciated.

---

Dear Sirs,

I write following a letter you sent addressed to me with reference XXXXXXX, RE: LETTER OF CLAIM.

Today I have sent your client, Armtrac Security Services a SAR request, so I require a restriction of data processing, and also require that you put a hold on this case until the SAR has been completed.

I suffer from chronic pain and the continued harassment from both Armtrac Security Services and BW Legal is causing immeasurable stress and anxiety on myself and my family. I am currently not able to work and am awaiting surgery on my back with a probable lengthy recovery period to follow. My partner has been forced to take time off work, at a financial cost, to care for our young children. I can barely move around my house let alone sit at a computer to respond to pointless letters. You and your client are making my symptoms worse.

Aside from the above, I dispute that I owe any debt.

I paid the advertised fee and returned well within the time limit. I placed the ticket on the dashboard with the main information showing. The ticket (of which I still have, a photo is attached to this email) is thin, lacks any form of adhesive and is completely inadequate. The day in question was very very windy and I can only assume the ticket was blown over through the vents after I had left the vehicle. There appear to be many cases of this happening yet still Armtrac still do not provide adequate tickets with adhesive backing.

Furthermore, I have not infringed any of the rules stated on the sign in the car park or on the ticket issued. The big sign at the payment machine states “TARIFF AND RULES APPLIED AT THIS CAR PARK” pointing to 7 rules. None of these rules have been infringed. The sign does not state that there are other rules or terms, in fact the sign makes out quite the opposite. This sign is completely inadequate. Following my initial appeal I was shown photographs of these other apparent terms and it’s clear they are also completely inadequate. One being at floor level! There is absolutely no way this is legible. They are not prominently displayed, conspicuous or legible from all parking spaces.

Researching previous cases it’s clear your client has no reasonable prospect of success, and if a claim is issued I will apply for all costs as allowable under CPR27.14(2)(g).

Yours faithfully

---

Coupon-mad

I have until the 29th November to respond before they issue a claim through the county court. I’ll request a SAR from Amtrac but will also send an email to BW Legal.

Good.

In the LBC, they mention the Civil Procedure Rules Pre-Action Protocol referring “in particular to paragraph 7, which sets out the expectations of the court in terms of complying with the protocol”. This protocol states “The debtor should use the Reply Form in Annex 1 for their response.” This contradicts the newbies thread which says to NOT use the reply forms. Which should I do?

What the NEWBIES thread says. Avoid the forms as we need to stop numpties filling in the income pages...none of it is relevant to a non-debt like this.

NO POSTER here fills in the LBC forms and still 99% of them win their case.

on.wheels

Thanks Coupon-mad, I'll get the SAR to Armtrac and the email to BW Legal today. I'll post again if and when I get a response.

beamerguy

All you need do is respond to the LBC and ignore all the forms which is non of their business
You never give personal info to an unknown

Assume they have added a FAKE £60 to their claim

READ THIS:--
Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

on.wheels

Hi beamerguy, yes they've added a fake £60 to the charge too so the balance they're saying is due is £160.

beamerguy

on.wheels wrote: »

Hi beamerguy, yes they've added a fake £60 to the charge too so the balance they're saying is due is £160.

Well, that is fake and the courts do not allow.

You can ask them on what authority they have to add £60 which is against POFA2012, the courts own double recovery rules and in the Beavis case where the Supreme court ruled ....
198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''


BWLegal have given many reasons for the £60, non of which are applicable

nosferatu1001

Do they describe it as "initial legal costs"?
If so, ask them how they are exempt from the small claims track rules under CPR27.14 AND POFA2012.

The_Deep

on.wheels wrote: »

Hi beamerguy, yes they've added a fake £60 to the charge too so the balance they're saying is due is £160.

Read this

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

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP after the election, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work.

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.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]

on.wheels

Yes, they do describe the fake £60 as "Initial Legal Costs". I will ask them the questions you both raised citing CPR27.14 AND POFA2012.

Thanks also for the link to the thread about BW's Abuse of Process, I'll mention this in my response to them also. As soon as Parliament is back, I'll be complaining to my MP.

on.wheels

Today I received a letter response from BW Legal.

Although I made many points in my letter to them including asking for a restriction of data processing, my chronic pain, asking under what authority they can add £60 "initial legal costs", and also points about the completely inadequate signs etc. - they chose only to respond to my first point about the restriction of data processing and have sent a seemingly generic response.

"Please be advised that s10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 has now been repealed and we have treated your s10 request as a request to restrict processing in accordance with data subject rights under the General Data Protection Regulation. Information about the right to restrict processing is available on the Information Commissioner's Office website. The right to restrict processing only applies in certain limited circumstances. Your request has been refused as we are not of the view that the right to restrict processing is applicable in this case. Your data is processed for the lawful purposes and obtained from the sources set out in the Privacy Notice, a copy of which is enclosed and available on [BW's website]. It is important to note that consent is not required to process your data as our Client has an overriding legitimate interest to recover the sums due to them.

As such, your account will not be suspended from further collections activity unless we are instructed to do so by Our Client. Please contact us to reach a suitable resolution."

I made no mention of "s10" in my letter and they also didn't enclose a copy of a Privacy Notice although stating they did. There was no response to any other of the points I raised to them.

It seems they're not willing to engage in any sort of discussion. I guess I should expect court papers?

Coupon-mad

That's a template - you could have searched the forum for it, quicker than showing us that tired old reply again! No need to show us that, or any letter from BW Legal...simply search the forum for a phrase from them as you go along.

Read CEC16's thread to understand the new arguments against the £60, as this is new from a week ago. BW Legal were beaten, and no doubt are unhappy about it!