BW Legal Letter of Claim

keenboy

Hey Guys, I'm after a bit of advice with dealing with BW Legal if possible.

In 2017 my wife was given a PCN from a private parking company for unauthorised parking. she had a valid ticket as she thought she parked in a valid parking space. She ignored the private parking company's demands for payment of £100 and now more than 2 years later, our good old friends BW Legal have sent my wife letters demanding payment of £160.

After researching and finding others in her situation, she ignored these demands until she received a 'Letter of Claim' from BW Legal giving her 30 days to respond. The letter included forms to fill out about finances and all of the other gumpf that have been mentioned on these forums.

They failed to provide more information regarding the 'unauthorised parking' which they have called a breach of contract so she responded to the letter of claim with the following:

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your Letter of Claim, dated 17 January 2020.

I’m afraid your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client is presumably relying upon. As such I must ask you to provide further information as detailed below, before I can decide how to proceed.

As of 1st October 2017 a new protocol has been applicable to debt claims, known as the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. I presume that your client, Premier Parking Solutions Ltd, is aware of this? Since court proceedings have not yet been issued, this new protocol clearly applies and must therefore be complied with, by all parties.

Your Letter of Claim lacks specificity, and as such I believe it breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all the currently outstanding documents and information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to inform the court of any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol, and furthermore to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations.

As solicitors, authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, who specialise in legal recovery, you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction which was applicable before 1st October 2017, and of the new Protocol which applies thereafter. Your client, Premier Parking Solutions Ltd should also be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. The objectives of pre-action conduct and protocols are to assist parties in: understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it; to make decisions about how to proceed; to try to settle the issues without court proceedings; to consider a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution to assist with settlement; to support the efficient management of those proceedings; and to reduce the costs of resolving the dispute. I therefore find it wholly inappropriate that a firm of solicitors who specialise in legal recovery are sending a consumer (myself) a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. As such, I require Premier Parking Solutions Ltd to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. The evidence they have that confirms that I was, as they claim, the driver at the time of the alleged contravention (which I dispute)
3. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
4. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? Please provide the names of the parties to it along with a copy of that contract.
5. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
6. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which authority to bring the claim is asserted, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1: establishing yourself as the creditor.
7. A map showing where any signs were displayed, including those upon entering the car park where the alleged contravention took place
8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)

If your client does not provide me with the above information, then I will ask the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the new Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings in the meantime.

Yours faithfully,

BW Legal have responded to today with the following:

We write in reference to the above matter and your recent correspondence.

Please find enclosed photographic evidence of the contravention enclosed.

In response to the points raised;

1. Our Client's cause of action is that you breached the Terms and Conditions of the contract
which you entered into by parking your vehicle in the car park, by unauthorised parking.

2. Our Client is pursuing you as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. As the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, and given that you had not provided Our Client with the full name and
serviceable address of the driver within 28 days from the date of the Parking Charge Notice,
Our Client is able to hold you liable for the unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

3. The details of the claim are that your vehicle parked in a Permit area without displaying a
valid Permit. The vehicle was observed at Northernhay Street car park on 17 January 2017.

4. The £100.00 charge is regarded as a charge for contravening the Terms and Conditions. The sum payable following the issue of the Parking Charge Notice occurs on the happening of a specific event (i.e. a material breach of the Terms and Conditions) and is therefore a core term of Our Client’s contract with you.

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. The signage in situ makes provision for Our Client to recover any additional costs
(Contractual Costs) incurred by them in relation to the Parking Charge Notice.

Contractual costs referred to above formed part of the Terms and Conditions (of the parking
contract which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the car park. Save for the
fact that the sum of £60.00 attributable towards these costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charge, such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.

5. The Parking Charge Notice which you have been issued with is for a breach of contract. The only right which you have to enter the land in question are on the Terms and Conditions
which apply. The signage at the car park is prominent and the Terms and Conditions are
clearly displayed. It is unnecessary to apply an analysis of offer, acceptance and consideration quite simply because the contract was formed on mutual promises. By parking your vehicle in the car park you have entered into a unilateral contract with Our Client. Acceptance does not have to be communicated, the act of parking your vehicle is acceptance.

6. We are under no obligation to supply you with this.

7, We are also under no obligation to supply you with this, however please find signage,
displayed in the car park, enclosed.

8. We are under no obligation to provide this, as above.

As a result of the breach, Our Client is well within their contractual rights to issue the Parking Charge Notice and take all necessary steps (including bringing legal proceedings) to recover the outstanding charge. Please note that Our Client will not accept a settlement for this Account, therefore the Outstanding Balance remains Due and Owing.

We trust that the above resolves your outstanding query. It is important that you contact us within 14 days of the date on this letter to avoid further collections activity on this Account. Should you not be willing to arrange an affordable repayment plan for this Outstanding Balance we strongly recommend that you seek your own independent legal advice.
Yours sincerely

BW Legal

They also enclosed photographs of the car parked in a bay with two unclear signs above it:

The first sign has no mention of Premier Parking Solutions - it's a Reserved Parking sign for another company to use with the company branding on it.

The second sign (above the first) is a pixilated Premier Parking Solutions sign with the text:

Warning - This land is private property

*Company* Permit holders only

Vehicles must park only within an allocated bay

However the entire car park apart from this space and the space next to it are 'normal' spaces. She reversed into the space and didn't notice the sign and then paid for the parking on a parking app and went about her business.

If someone could offer some advice to this situation that would be appreciated.

My wife suffers from depression and fibromyalgia which causes her chronic pain and discomfort and this battle with BW Legal is taking its toll on her well being.

Redx

read the LBC stage in the NEWBIES sticky thread


email a SAR to the DPO at PPS


prepare for a court case

beamerguy

Dear oh dear, what a flawed letter they write
Great one to show a judge though ?

THE BEAVIS CASE
Yes, the Supreme Court agreed that £85 was an acceptable charge.
They also said in ruling 198 .....
''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''

In plain english, that means no fake £60 add-on

I do love this bit ....
Save for the
fact that the sum of £60.00 attributable towards these costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charge, such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.

Do read this .....
READ HOW THE BPA AND IPC entice their members to break the law

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6083229/bpa-cop-clause-19-9-and-34-8

The code of practice for both ATA's is a code of practice only for parking companies, it's not a law, it's not a contract for the motorist, it is an unregulated code ONLY for parking companies

The grass roots of this nonsence is just like the PPI scam where tick boxes were automatically ticked to say you agreed. This is why the banks have refunded £millions to people.

Motorists have NEVER agreed to abide by a code of practice that also breaks the law

This nonsensical rubbish would claim that even a judge would be bound by a contract he never entered in to ???

IT'S NO WONDER THEREFORE THAT ....
Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

Other feeble excuses BWLegal claim for the fake £60
* contractual charge
* admin costs
* debt collector costs
They don't even know themselves ???????

Coupon-mad

The response you found and sent was old, from 2017, and is not suggested in the NEWBIES thread and hasn't been for a year or more. It says very little & was easy for them to bat away.

No harm done but the Defendant needs to now just do the SAR as the NEWBIES thread explains. Wee assume this is PPS, so read other PPS BW Legal defence threads which have already got past this stage, have shown their defences & WS for others to learn from, and submitted evidence to their local courts last year, and won.