Brittania parking/BW legal taking me to court

bluegoldie

Le_Kirk said:

bluegoldie said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Why would a COMPLAINT possibly harm you? 

I'm just worried that I would be playing my defence card to them?! The main basis of my defence is the fact that they have failed to aknowledge my request for the "debt" to be investigated and my liability proven. I just don't want to give the snakes the opportunity to come up with some BS story; although I gave them 28 days  (which was the FCA standard) to aknowledge my dispute, it's been 3 months and all I've had is a summons to court.

Are you sure it was a summons? You don't get those for civil claims.  Did you mean a court claim?

Yes the court claim! Sorry my terminology, it's been a long day 

bluegoldie

Umkomaas said:

I'm just worried that I would be playing my defence card to them?

In a small claims court case you have to reveal your Defence to them within a month of filing the claim. You can't keep any surprises up your sleeve to hit them with at a hearing. There are no 'gotchas' in the small claims court. 

I don't know what I was thinking really! It would actually help me out as I would know what excuses they are planning to use well ahead of time. Think I've been so panicked over this i haven't been thinking straight.

Redx

And there is no summons either , as coupon mad pointed out , there were no offences committed

This is a civil court case

You have months to catch up on terminology and background information , concentrate on your draft Defence for this court claim , don't bring up misnomers or slang or things you know nothing about , so no offences , no summons , nobody sold any debts , stop speculating

It's a simple civil court claim over an unpaid invoice !!

The claimant and their solicitors will see your Defence not long after you email it to the CCBC in Northampton , so it's not a secret

You will see their evidence and witness statements a few weeks before the hearing , they will see yours too , as will your nominated court

Fruitcake

bluegoldie said:

Fruitcake said:

bluegoldie said:

I've had ano actual response from BWL lol!!! In response to the email I shouldn't have sent from some paralegal in the team; here goes 

I write in reference to your email dated 15 February 2021.

 

We note your comments that you have raised a Subject Access Request (SAR) with our client, it is important to note that a SAR does not affect the validity of our client’s Claim meaning that our client has an overriding legitimate interest to recover the sums due to them. As such, your account will not be suspended from further legal action unless we are instructed to do so by our client.

 

We kindly request that you get in contact with us on 0113 487 0430 within 14 days from the date of this email to arrange a suitable payment arrangement for the outstanding balance of £238.48. If no contact is received, we will be at liberty to enter a County Court Judgment (CCJ) against you, for the balance outstanding

Why do they think I will have a CCJ? Am I right in thinking that even if I did lose if I paid the outstanding money in 30 days I would not get one?? 

They say these things to frighten people in the hope they will pay up.
Yes you are correct in your assumptions

Thank you! May seem like a silly question but they have said I would incur extra legal costs which I would be liable for; would these be expected to be paid in the 30 days too? Or just the amount that they are claiming? 

The costs they are allowed to claim are the original charge, usually £100, the court filing fee of £25, solicitors fees capped at £50, and sometimes a court attendance fee of £25. In most cases the latter is rarely applied, and in my opinion should not apply for a telephone hearing where no physical attendance has taken place.
That's it. £175 - £200 max. The scammers are not permitted to add any more charges, but unfortunately many try to get away with it. If undefended, or if the add-ons are not challenged, then if the scammers win will get awarded everything they claim.
If you lost, but defended the whole claim, and challenged the fake add-ons, then there will be no extra charges.
If you won you might be able to claim up to £95.

Whatever the judgment, it will be a single amount which will not affect your credit if paid within 30 days.

bluegoldie

Fruitcake said:

bluegoldie said:

Fruitcake said:

bluegoldie said:

I've had ano actual response from BWL lol!!! In response to the email I shouldn't have sent from some paralegal in the team; here goes 

I write in reference to your email dated 15 February 2021.

 

We note your comments that you have raised a Subject Access Request (SAR) with our client, it is important to note that a SAR does not affect the validity of our client’s Claim meaning that our client has an overriding legitimate interest to recover the sums due to them. As such, your account will not be suspended from further legal action unless we are instructed to do so by our client.

 

We kindly request that you get in contact with us on 0113 487 0430 within 14 days from the date of this email to arrange a suitable payment arrangement for the outstanding balance of £238.48. If no contact is received, we will be at liberty to enter a County Court Judgment (CCJ) against you, for the balance outstanding

Why do they think I will have a CCJ? Am I right in thinking that even if I did lose if I paid the outstanding money in 30 days I would not get one?? 

They say these things to frighten people in the hope they will pay up.
Yes you are correct in your assumptions

Thank you! May seem like a silly question but they have said I would incur extra legal costs which I would be liable for; would these be expected to be paid in the 30 days too? Or just the amount that they are claiming? 

The costs they are allowed to claim are the original charge, usually £100, the court filing fee of £25, solicitors fees capped at £50, and sometimes a court attendance fee of £25. In most cases the latter is rarely applied, and in my opinion should not apply for a telephone hearing where no physical attendance has taken place.
That's it. £175 - £200 max. The scammers are not permitted to add any more charges, but unfortunately many try to get away with it. If undefended, or if the add-ons are not challenged, then if the scammers win will get awarded everything they claim.
If you lost, but defended the whole claim, and challenged the fake add-ons, then there will be no extra charges.
If you won you might be able to claim up to £95.

Whatever the judgment, it will be a single amount which will not affect your credit if paid within 30 days.

So less than the 240 they are asking for. I'm just having a wobble today; I've also realised that the FCA code doesn't apply to non consumer debt which is what they have parking invoices filed as under their complaints procedures!! So my email disputing the amount they claimed I owed is not worth the time? 

Redx

I would agree , it's a bit late to be a campaigner apart from assisting on here

It's an unregulated industry , with plans already in the making , currently with the bsi and the mhclg

Read the recent post by Johnnersh about the claim process , plus the various limitations in small claims cases

bluegoldie

I have completed the defence statement points 2 and 3 (below) could you please cast an eye over the final version before I send it? My deadline is 11th of march but the anxiety that this is causing I just want it sent ! I'm right in thinking now that I copy the rest of the defence statement on the newbies thread and slot my bit in ? 
I'm so greatful for the help you guys have given me; I've made some errors with this overall but I wouldn't have known where to start, so thank you!


2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied the defendant was definitely not the driver and transferred liability to the driver in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.  At that point, the Defendant's potential for any liability (which is not admitted because it is not automatic) ended.

 

3.1 the defendant  was first made aware of the alleged breach of contract on the 27th August 2020. The defendant was not the driver at the time of the alleged offence and was confident that the photos sent were  proof of this. As a consequence the defendant completed the transfer of liability section on the letter providing full details and a serviceable address for the driver, and this was returned via first class post on the 13th September; the defendant would therefore like to acknowledge that this  was compliant with their responsibility.

3.2 No appeal was made to the claimant for liability within the 28 days due to the defendant complying with the request set out in the transfer of liability.

3.3 following harassment and the level of distress caused as the claimants representative then continued to send distressing letters to the defendant and not the the driver. The defendant emailed the claimants representative on the 3rd  December to dispute the debt and requested that liability for the debt was proven to be the defendants responsibility (FCA chapter 7)

3.4 A response was received on the 9th December 2020,  this response only contained the original PCN (copy) from the 27th August 2020 and the subsequent final letter dated the 14th September 2020. There was no attempt made to establish with the defendant the basis of the dispute nor did it attempt to rectify the concerns raised. 

3.6 The defendant maintains that they have not withheld information in regards to the identity of the driver thus fulfilling their responsibility as registered keeper

Fruitcake

Defence, not Defence Statement.

Perhaps reword para 2.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver of the vehicle in question but and liability is denied. the The defendant was definitely not the driver and had already transferred liability to the driver in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.  At that point, the Defendant's potential for any liability (which is not admitted because it is not automatic) ended ceased to apply.

bluegoldie

Yes that's the title on the actual document just put statement to differentiate between the two paragraphs and the whole thing.  Thank you! 

D_P_Dance

... they have said I would incur extra legal costs which I would be liable 

Could not would.  By the same token, if they were to lose, they could be hit with stiff charges for unreasonable behaviour.  Both are unlikely.