LBC received from BW Legal

Le_Kirk

Did you ask for processing of the claim to be suspended for 30 days according to the Pre-action protocol for debt claims as, even though you deny there is any debt, you are taking debt advice.

Read a thread by poster CEC16 where you will find lots of interesting pointers by Coupon-mad about the Abuse of Process and the spurious additional costs.

on.wheels

Coupon-mad - Apologies for posting the template response, I'll be sure to search properly if I receive any more letters.

I'd missed the recent posts on CEC16's thread, wow that was an exciting read! Well done to everyone, what a result! It's a shame for me that I don't live in Hampshire, IOW, Dorset or Wiltshire!

Le_Kirk - I didn't explicitly state the "Pre-action protocol for debt claims" but I did say "I deny any charge and have al​so noted your scare tactics about a CCJ. I am seeking debt advice and ​you must now put the case on hold for at least 30 days."

As I also mentioned a restriction of data processing in the first paragraph it seems they've ignored everything else after this and sent the template response.

Perhaps I should push them again to respond to my previous points, again stating the debt advice and now mention the recent ruling about the £60 and abuse of process?

Le_Kirk

Yes, push them again as they seem to have ignored the pre-action protocol. This is still pre-action isn't it, i.e. you have not received a claim form from Northampton CCBC?

Coupon-mad

It would be quite fun for you to simply ask 'please explain the breakdown of the charge including the fake £60 and how you contend your client can recover this sum on top of a parking charge?'

...and NOT tell them what you know about their failed application in Soton.

The point is to let them dig a hole you can expose in court later, as you know they know they cannot.

on.wheels

Le_Kirk - Great, I'll do that. Yes it's still pre-claim - I'm at the LBC stage.

Coupon-mad - That's a great idea, I'll also do that!

I'll keep the letter super short with just these 2 points so hopefully they might actually read it. Thanks to both of you.

on.wheels

I'm starting to learn just how shady BWL are! They're repeatedly asking me to confirm 'Data Protection Questions' before they 'can respond' even though they've already responded to me after I confirmed what they already knew (my name, address etc.)

Now they've slipped 'Telephone number' and 'DOB' in to their list of things I need to 'confirm'. I'm guessing they want to bombard me with calls.

beamerguy

on.wheels wrote: »

I'm starting to learn just how shady BWL are! They're repeatedly asking me to confirm 'Data Protection Questions' before they 'can respond' even though they've already responded to me after I confirmed what they already knew (my name, address etc.)

Now they've slipped 'Telephone number' and 'DOB' in to their list of things I need to 'confirm'. I'm guessing they want to bombard me with calls.

HA, shady is very tame.

All that is required is a copy of your V5 which then confirms the info obtained from the DVLA

Of course confirm your current address.
NO PHONE NUMBER ...... they have professional bullies who if you met face to face would run a mile if you said boo
They are a disgrace to the legal system.

If they do not comply, then a complaint to the ICO

on.wheels

beamerguy wrote: »

HA, shady is very tame.

I'm sure I'll think of some more adjectives later on in this process!

on.wheels

It was difficult (many attempts to get more details from me and me having to confirm who I was again) but I finally managed to get a response for the 2 points I asked.

This is their response regarding them refusing to place this case on hold after me informing them although I denied any debt I was seeking debt advice:

“this is not a debt claim. This is a Parking Charge Notice. The pre-action protocol allows us to discuss this case in regards to many things including your finances – you will note that the form that we sent you includes an income and expenditure form which will enable you to tell us more about this. You should note that nothing has happened on the case since you made that request also – we are acquiesing [sic] to your request.”

My second point asked how their client contended to recover the £60 on top of a parking charge.

They sent a few copy and paste responses stating why £100 was a reasonable sum, mentioning the beavis case. And also why the “additional costs (Contractural costs)” of £60 are reasonable and “are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice”.

This next bit doesn’t seem copy and paste.

“We note in previous correspondence you have referred to the cost as intial legal costs. We would encourage you to look over the letter we sent you again as this refers to a table of figures based on a CCJ being granted against you. If you turn the page over, you can see that the £60.00 is referred to as Debt Recovery Costs, which have been mentioned as far back as the signage and are therefore not double recovery.”

Every single correspondence from BW that I’ve had that mentions the £60 has called it “initial legal costs”, even the LBC letter. Only on the on the second page of the LBC letter under “Statement of Account” have they now called it “Total Debt Recovery Costs”.

So it is a debt after all?! The signs at the car park, which are obviously completely inadequate and very poorly positioned, mention “additional costs” only.

As they seem to ignore every other point I make I guess it’s just a waiting game now. Is there much I can do now?

I’m going for an operation very soon after a long period of chronic pain but should be able to prepare a defense!

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6075895/ipc-code-and-increasing-a-parking-charge-by-up-to-60

You know about Southampton so you know the fact they call it debt collection is MUSIC TO YOUR EARS as those operational costs are already in the £100.

If not covering the operational costs of debt letter sending, what is the £100 for because it can't be explained as a GPEOL either? Was one of the things I left hanging in the air at Southampton.

If they push for the £60 then they 'orphan' the £100 and lave that exposed as a penalty. It's just about getting a Judge to understand that and using the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA 2015 to explain that this is (indisputably) double recovery and an abuse of the court process.

BTW they are pleading it in debt, so they are stupid, and they can't spell acquiesce...