BW LEGAL EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE

nosferatu1001

That obviously goes in any witness statement!
Maybe explain to them how they figure that theyre entitled to the original amount, given that  Beavis is VERY clear - and IS binding on them - that to be recoverable a parking charge must include ALL operational costs already. Debt recovery is clearly part of that. 
So bravo
Thank you for confirming your £100 charge falls outside of that allowed by BEavis, is therefore a penalty, and is nonrecoverable. As this is the principal amount on which *all* other charges are predicated, not you have confirmed this amount cannot be recovered, the entirety of your claim fails as well. 
I will expect your notice of discontinuance shortly, as it is clear you have no possibiltiy of success, and to continue would be vexatious conduct. 
My full costs will be payable when you lose, shoudl you continue to court. 

beamerguy

I have seen many rubbish replies from BWLegal like this  They are totally deluded when they reference the BPA code of practice. Do what nosferatu1001 says and add this

I note you still fail to explain your legal authority for adding £60.  It is difficult to understand why you persist in believing that your authority comes from a code of practice ?  Both codes of practice are solely for a private parking company and not the motorist. There is no contract for the motorist and is not a law that you can attach yourself to, hence you simply do not have any legal authority to do so.  I therefore suggest that you attempt to explain to a judge your reasoning as both codes of practice are against the Supreme Court and POFA2012 to which a judge will be more interested in the facts of the law as apposed to a code of practice which is not a law. The Judge will also be interested that BWLegal attempt to circumvent the law that being POFA2012 and the Beavis v Parking Eye case ruling in the Supreme court where it was agreed that the parking charge was acceptable as it included the costs of recovery.  It will be pointed out to the court that Parking Eye understand the ruling and never apply extra charges as BWLegal does.

Reference will also be made to your letter stating "any additional costs (Contractual Costs) "
You then proceed to quote the BPA code of practice as follows .. " A reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees"
Why are you so confused with "contractual" and "debt recovery" ?
In either case, neither are applicable and I will ask the court to strike out your claim for abuse of process and a poor attempt to mislead me

BrownTrout

Do as beamerguy says ,but dont expect a proper reply 

D_P_Dance

If you do not get a "proper reply" ask them again, and keep asking.  If they refuse to answer it will not help their case in court.

beamerguy

BrownTrout said:

Do as beamerguy says ,but dont expect a proper reply 

Agree, it will be just full of waffle.  great to show to a judge though

chiv97

Hello again. Thank you for your previous help. I thought I was finally getting somewhere as they emailed me to say they were putting my case on hold. Two weeks later, I received a letter through the post.

"Further to the query you have raised with us, our client has confirmed that the £100 charged is regarded as a charge contravening the terms and conditions, and our Client has a legitimate interest in charging infringing motorists which extends beyond the recovery of any loss. The Supreme Court considered that PCN charges (like this charge) in Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402 serve a legitimate commercial interest and did not consider the term imposing a similar charge as unfair. The relevant parking Code of Practice also gives guidance that £100 is a reasonable sum to charge. 

Our Client has offered a contract to you, providing a limited contractual license to use the Car Park on the basis of the specified terms and conditions. Our Client has provide their end of the bargain by permitting your Vehicle to park on private land. Following your breach, the our Client is simply enforcing the terms and conditions in relation to that breach.

We trust this now concludes any outstanding queries you had raised with ourselves. It is important that you now contact us in order that we can discuss an affordable payment arrangement.

If you do not agree and need further information, it is important that you contact us within 10 days of this letter. Failure to do so within 10 days may lead to further collections activity."

nosferatu1001

Case on hold is a usual step. 
Respond, state you do not agree, and that you are still waiting their legal basis for adding a sum not specified in any contract, and which has been decided as an abuse of process on more than one occasion, 

Coupon-mad

The OP seems to think this is actually going to stop them.  It's NOT designed to do that!

beamerguy

Our Client has provide their end of the bargain by permitting your Vehicle to park

Do solicitors really write such tosh .... yup, BWLegal do

The letter does not address your question about legal authority

I can tell you, the more you write to this lot, the replies become even more farcical and nonsensical.
Recently I have seen some real "bobby dazzlers" from BWLegal.

Such letters are so comical that we need to be careful that judge is in good health before he reads them. ?

chiv97  ..... would you like a reply, either by PM or on here ?

chiv97

@beamerguy through PM please!