Court claim form because of ANPR camera fine

Angellicaa

Coupon-mad said:

I had a letter from them today (BW legal, who are working on behalf of Premier Parking Solutions). They  say that I still have time to pay the £250 and if I put in a defence I will get extra court costs if I lose.   The post above says there will not be extra court costs, but BW Legal are saying that there could be. 

 

Can you show us that letter?  Some of this misleading rubbish is getting worse this Spring.

I've not uploaded a letter onto this site before but will try and do that now.

Coupon-mad

You can show a photo.  Cover your name, address and ref.

Angellicaa

Coupon-mad said:

You can show a photo.  Cover your name, address and ref.

OK that wasn't too difficult! I underlined in white where it says it.

Coupon-mad

I think that's misleading enough to report BW Legal to the SRA, alleging that BW are in breach of their professional standards by misleading Defendants.

It wrongly tells people they will get a CCJ if they lose at a hearing (not true.  You'd have 30 days to pay) and wrongly states that a hearing will incur 'fees and costs' (plural) over and above the claim (also not true).

One hearing fee = £25 gets added in small claims like this. Not further 'fees AND costs' in the small claims track.

AND on top of all that, despite knowing the Govt has banned it and called the false add-on' extorting money' (Neil O'Brien MP on 7.2.2022, in the DLUHC's Ministerial Foreword to the new statutory Parking Code of Practice) they've added a false (never incurred) £70 purported 'debt recovery fee' that it is believed goes to BW Legal (not their client - and you want the SRA to investigate that tangled web of what looks like allegedly,  deceiving consumers).

The £70 per PCN 'extortion' (DLUHC's word) by DRAs and robo claim law firms in the rogue parking industry, has the object or effect of more than doubling the capped £50 legal fees they already tacked onto the claim.  The solicitor can't have both.  In cases with multiple PCNs, multiples of £70 are added - even adding 4 figure sums to claims sometimes - and this is diabolical unjust enrichment, which does not necessarily all appear to go to the parking firm client.

You want the SRA to investigate the wording in the letter and what happens to the millions generated by the fake £70 add-on, which BW Legal know has been banned in February, and why it was banned.

RN61

Coupon-mad said:

I think that's misleading enough to report BW Legal to the SRA, alleging that BW are in breach of their professional standards by misleading Defendants.

It wrongly tells people they will get a CCJ if they lose at a hearing (not true.  You'd have 30 days to pay) and wrongly states that a hearing will incur 'fees and costs' (plural) over and above the claim (also not true).

One hearing fee = £25 gets added in small claims like this. Not further 'fees AND costs' in the small claims track.

AND on top of all that, despite knowing the Govt has banned it and called the false add-on' extorting money' (Neil O'Brien MP on 7.2.2022, in the DLUHC's Ministerial Foreword to the new statutory Parking Code of Practice) they've added a false (never incurred) £70 purported 'debt recovery fee' that it is believed goes to BW Legal (not their client - and you want the SRA to investigate that tangled web of what looks like allegedly,  deceiving consumers).

The £70 per PCN 'extortion' (DLUHC's word) by DRAs and robo claim law firms in the rogue parking industry, has the object or effect of more than doubling the capped £50 legal fees they already tacked onto the claim.  The solicitor can't have both.  In cases with multiple PCNs, multiples of £70 are added - even adding 4 figure sums to claims sometimes - and this is diabolical unjust enrichment, which does not necessarily all appear to go to the parking firm client.

You want the SRA to investigate the wording in the letter and what happens to the millions generated by the fake £70 add-on, which BW Legal know has been banned in February, and why it was banned.

Woah, just seen this. I'm in similar boat to @Angellicaa, same firms and even same issue date, but different location.

Occurs to me that language used in letter is not only unprofessional (hat tip to report to SRA) but ILLEGAL as it appears there are a number of laws potentially breached on basis of the untruth and the harassment, alarm and distress caused by it.

Anyone know if this is a potential counter-claim and if so how to proceed?

NB. Citizens Advice on this situation https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/harassment-by-creditors/ 

RN61

Update. Just got home from Sunday lunch to find same letter on my doormat..... (albeit addressed to me!) 

KeithP

@RN61, if you want to progress your issue can I suggest that you start your own thread?

Whilst your first post on this thread was fine, there is a great risk following your latest post that this thread will be dragged away from @Angellicaa's predicament.

Trying the progress the different issues of two different people can only lead to confusion. We have seen it happen all too often.

Thanks for your understanding.

Coupon-mad

But please can all of you complain separately online about BW Legal.  That letter appears to mislead and breach the STaRs (SRA standards about integrity).

Their client doesn't get 'awarded a CCJ' in the context that the acronym 'CCJ' means to the average person who will wrongly believe that continuing to defend, immediately risks their credit rating.  This just is not the case.

It's half-truths at best, IMHO.

Don't forget to also complain about BW Legal continuing to add £60 or £70 fixed 'costs' on top of every PCN, and ask the SRA to investigate who keeps that money/pays the VAT on it, given those fake costs were banned by the Government in February and declared these add-ons to be 'designed to extort money from motorists'.

If BW Legal are keeping (part or all of) multiples of £60/£70 for every parking PCN chased, despite knowing it was exposed by the DLUHC's Ministerial Foreword to the new Code of Practice as 'extortion', then the conclusion to draw is that it (allegedly) seems to be reasonable to view this as a system set up to artificially avoid the consumer-protecting cap on legal fees for small claims (£50, which BW Legal also add).

Angellicaa

Anyone know if this is a potential counter-claim and if so how to proceed?

I felt like putting in a counter claim for all the stress it has caused.

Angellicaa

This is their apparent clear signage. It’s the only one in the car park apart from where you get the ticket. It’s as you drive in (and on the left) and a lot smaller than the council one that used to be there.