Letter of Claim from BW Legal

nosferatu1001

Yep
Ask how this squares with 
- Beavis (point them at the paras) which stated that the PCNs MUST include the costs of debt recovery already
- CRA2015
- POFA2012 (if relevant) which states no doible recovery is permitted, and never more than above the amount of the NtK

D_P_Dance

-        The £60.00 is calculated as debt recovery cost
Unlawful,   Write asking them them where the law states that thus is permitted.

 Under the Code of Practice, Part E, Schedule 5 – Parking Charges states, “Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added.

But the COP has no legal force, it is worthless.  Write to them asking where the law says this is permitted.  Copy yo the SRA headed COMPLAINT -  CONDUCT LIABLE TO BRING THE PROFESSION INTO DISREPUTE   

They are trying to misleade the public here, conduct like to bring their profession into disrepute. 

https://www.sra.org.uk/

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

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, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

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

 

beamerguy

Well well, BWLegal were stupid enough to reply ????  The perfect rubbish letter to show the court

Dear Sirs,

In reply to your letter dated xxx
My letter dated xxx requested you provide your legal authority to add £60 ? . You have failed to provide this  but instead, you state the amount refers to debt recovery ?   You already know that you are not entitled to this claim.
You already know what POFA2012 states, you already know what the Supreme court stated in the Beavis v Parking Eye case, You already know about S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and, you already know that is an abusive attempt of double recovery.
You appear to think the code of practice is a legal authority ?  Your interpretation must be explained to a judge as the code of practice from both the BPA and IPC is for the PPC and not the motorist and it most certainly does not offer legal authority nor is it a contract.

BWLegal are also fully aware that your unlawful charge of £60 is classed as Abuse of Process to which your cases are being dismissed and when you appealed recently in Southampton, your appeal was dismissed again.

Why does BWLegal still attempt unlawful claims when the courts state this is Abuse of Process. ?

As these points above will be shown to a court plus a list of cases where your claims failed, I very strongly suggest that by return, you discontinue your claim and bear your own costs.
I am very disturbed that I have had to write you again on a subject you are well aware of and so, by way of this letter, my time for writing again bears a cost of £19. Each subsequent letter to you asking for your legal authority will also be charged at £19.  Should you continue to pursue me with unlawful amounts, these will be added to my costs claim in court

Yours faithfully

Le_Kirk

beamerguy said:

You appear to think the a code of practice is a legal authority.  Your interpretation must be explained to a judge as the code of practice from both the BPA and IPC is for the PPC and not the motorist and it most certainly does not offer legal authority nor is it a contract.
I am very disturbed that I have had to write you again on a subject you are well aware of and so, by way of this letter, my time for writing again bears a cost of £19. Each subsequent letter to you asking for your legal authority will also be charged at £19.  Should you continue to pursue me with unlawful amounts, these will be added to my costs claim in court

Just a couple of typos.

beamerguy

OK, have corrected a code of practice but pursue is surely correct 

Le_Kirk

beamerguy said:

OK, have corrected a code of practice but pursue is surely correct 

It is now, I corrected it in the quoted passage but on your post it states persue.

beamerguy

Ah, thank your kind sir, now corrected

KeithP

At the time of the contravention, our client was a member of the Independent Parking Committee (the Trade Association)...

That simply is not true.

At the time of the contravention, 23rd July 2017, the Independent Parking Committee did not exist.

Umkomaas

KeithP said:

At the time of the contravention, our client was a member of the Independent Parking Committee (the Trade Association)...

That simply is not true.

At the time of the contravention, 23rd July 2017, the Independent Parking Committee did not exist.

In fact, I think by then Ms Sole had commandeered the title.  Later to have to relinquish it. 

Castle

The "Independent Parking Committee" became the "International Parking Community" in March 2016.