Letter of Claim BW Legal

Ak242

Update:

Received response to SAR from CPMS Manchester. They gave photos of the vehicle, copy of the notice to keeper and a report detailing when letters were sent out. When prompted about the contract with the alleged driver, they pointed to a a picture of the vehicle where a sign can vaguely be seen and said that their solicitor has all the information.

Reply from BW Legal refusing extension, even when told the keeper was seeking debt advice, and said they will continue collections activity.

The keeper will now wait for the claim letter and start thinking about their defence. Please advise if there is anything else that needs doing in the meanwhile 

Coupon-mad

copy of the notice to keeper

Does it include the properly worded warning about keeper liability from the POFA 8(2)f or 9(2)f ?

Email BW Legal back and ask:

- why has their client never supplied a copy of the contract (the sign) which, under the pre-action Protocol for debt claims, has to accompany a Letter before Claim?    State that you require a copy of the sign itself, taken on the day.

- is their client relying upon the POFA 2012 keeper liability provisions and if not, what liability basis exists?

-  why they continue to file exaggerated claims adding £60 to a parking charge, are they hoping for a court that has not heard about BW Legal's Southampton failure and just hoping to keep abusing the court process until they are ordered to stop?

Ak242

The notice to keeper is properly worded warning about keeper liability etc.

Reply from BW Legal:

Picture of sign not provided again. “It is unnecessary to apply an analysis of offer, acceptance and consideration quite simply because the contract was formed on mutual promises.” Claim signage across the car park is prominent and driver entered a unilateral contract when entering the car park. (Even though the vehicle never entered the car park)

The client will not rely on Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Client is relying on ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

”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.“

D_P_Dance

”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.“

But the relevent parking code of practice is not law,   Also, in the Beavis  case PE was the de facto landowne, and did not add on a fake £60.

IMO,  BWL are deliberately trying to mislead you.  Why not report the to the SRA.

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

beamerguy

The client will not rely on Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Client is relying on ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

”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.“

OH DEAR ... BWLEGAL have really gone off their trolley ..... In the words of BWLegal ..... that really is nonsensical.
If they were really relying on Beavis they would understand that the ruling was .... 198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''

And that brings it to the next paragraph
"Sum of £60.00 attributable towards these costs"

Now that really is nonsensical.   Because of their lack of knowlegde, it's no wonder BWL get spanked in court for abuse of process.   Fancy that, relying on the Beavis case ????? TRAGIC

such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.
That really is rubbish, whichever code of practice is only for parking firms, not the motorist, IT IS NOT A LAW and IT'S NOT A CONTRACT

Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1

nosferatu1001

"The client will not rely on Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. "
Perfect, meaning they cannot hold the keeper liable
Respond to them, thanking them for confirming they have no method of holding you, the keeper, liable - unless they can p[rove you were the driver. You look forward to them providing this proof as it will of course be useful in narrowing the topics under dispute.
You also disagree on the contract analysis they have attempted to bamboozle you with. The signs are of paramount importance, and clealry will help narrow the issues under dispute - you claim there was a contract offered, I claim there wasnt. Disclose the signs, or else concede that you are failing to meet your obligations under the PAP. Of course, this is de facto unreasonable behaviour, and you will be seeking your costs on the indemnity basis., 

Coupon-mad

Quote the PAP about having to provide the contract (the signs).

Ak242

Sorry if this is a stupid question but what is PAP? 

KeithP

PAP = Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

Coupon-mad

On 4th March, I said:

Email BW Legal back and ask:
- why has their client never supplied a copy of the contract (the sign) which, under the pre-action Protocol for debt claims, has to accompany a Letter before Claim?    State that you require a copy of the sign itself, taken on the day.

Then I repeated it, shortening it to PAP because I'd already put it in full, on 4th March and thought you'd have Googled it last week to see what I meant?