Threatening letter after acknowledgement of service

RN61

Further email to BWL

[Removed by Forum Team]; complaints@bwlegal.co.uk;

Dear Mr [Removed by Forum Team]

Thank you for your out-of-office reply to my letter of complaint emailed xxxxxx. To date I have not received acknowledgement of that.

Please add  [Removed by Forum Team] to my complaint; his name appears on the claim against me and can fairly be held to account, as well as BW Legal.

Could one of you kindly acknowledge receipt of my letter of complaint and this update to it.

Regards,

//////////////////

Mr  [Removed by Forum Team] features on my Claim Form. He is on the SRA database, but only appointed as a solicitor 1/2/19.

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/person/?lastName=Bandi&sraNumber=655792

His bio per IPC ( who left it on there after a seminar);

 [Removed by Forum Team] is the Operational Head of Legal at BW Legal. As a solicitor, with over 9 years of experience in debt recovery and litigation,  [Removed by Forum Team] leads a highly skilled litigation team and advises clients on a vast range of complex legal matters and strategy in a number of different sectors including private parking, financial services, Utilities, recruitment, commercial B2B, insolvency (personal and corporate) and landlord/tenant work. Having successfully led the teams behind landmark cases such as VCS v Ward, Britannia v Semark-Jullien, KBT v Matton and VCS v Crutchley,  [Removed by Forum Team] will share his expertise based on various trends and judicial decisions in the private parking sector, on the complexities surrounding residential enforcement of private parking charges - in particular the rights of tenants, leasesholders and freeholders. The focus of this seminar will be addressing the primacy of contract arguments which have originated from internet forums and how private parking operators account for the rights of residents when implementing a parking management scheme.

IPC add that he is a member of the International Parking Community Approved Service Provider Interest Group.

https://theipc.info/peoplebio/15 

Coupon-mad

Yep we know about him. He's kindly emailed me before...we had a discussion!

RN61

@Coupon-mad and any others able to assist, hoping you can kindly review my proposed Defence if you have time. It is due in by 1600 11/5/22 but I may submit earlier as I will be on holiday abroad then. Alternatively, I may complete and submit from abroad at the last minute. NB1. I initially asked Co-Op to intervene, but they declined and referred me to the land owner whom they did not name. Search suggests land owner is Demac Properties Ltd, company N1040498 whom I have not tried to contact . NB2. BW Legal have unsurprisingly failed to acknowledge the complaint made to them. Thank you.

3. The Claimant’s Notice to Keeper refers to a period of alleged parking by an “Unauthorised Vehicle from 1441 hours to 1524 hours on 6th September 2021”, by the Defendant’s car xxxxxxx.

 

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 applies [PoFA] and 9(2)c requires that such a Notice details the circumstances in which the requirement to pay arose (including how the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable.

 

However, the Notice sent to the Defendant did not detail anything, stating only, “This charge relates to the period of parking specified above, the charge having been incurred for the reason stated and liability for the same having been brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the camera-controlled car park at the time of parking. Photographic evidence shows the vehicle entering the location at 14:41:24 and departing at 15:24:04.”

 

No clue was given as to the content of the “clear signage” referred to nor its location, or how its content was breached. Two images are included in the Notice. Both are taken from an ANPR camera facing a gateway and apparently set to capture moving vehicles, not those that are parked or otherwise stationary. The first is of the front of the Defendant’s car and timed at 1441 hours; the second is timed 1524 hours and is of the rear of a car in shadow, and the number plate is not visible. Thus, the Notice only supplied evidence of the Defendant’s car entering the car park but not of it being stationary or parked.

 

PoFA 9 (2) i requires that the Notice say the date on which it was posted. The date of sending was said to be 14th September 2021. However, postage on that date seems unlikely because that is the same day that DVLA supplied the Claimant with the Defendant’s keeper details and said Notice was not received by the Defendant until 26th September 2021 - almost three weeks after the period of alleged parking.

 

PoFA section 9 (1) 4 & 5 require that the Notice to Keeper be delivered within 14 days following the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended, viz by 21st September 2022, thus the Notice was also six days late.

 

PoFA 9 (2) a requires that a Notice to Keeper specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked. The Notice is partially overwritten in the address section, and says, “(illegible) address of Site: Magnolia Centre, Exmouth, Exmouth, EX8 1HS.” Google Maps confirms that the Magnolia Centre is a large area with many shops, various streets and walkways and more than one parking area and loading bay.

 

These breaches conspired to disadvantage the Defendant and ensure that he had insufficient information to confirm necessary details of how and where his alleged transgression occurred, and whether the Claim had merit.

 

In accordance with Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, the Defendant emailed the Claimant and subsequently their representative BW Legal on several occasions to obtain the necessary information, namely exact location of the car park, where the vehicle was allegedly parked within it, the content and location of the “clear signage”, how its content was breached, images of the signage and other photographs taken of his vehicle, proof of postage of the Notice, the land-owners details and confirmation that PPS acted on behalf of same. Receipt was acknowledged but said information has not been forthcoming, and no reason has been given for that.

 

4. The Claimant’s Notice to Keeper demanded a parking charge of £60. Thereafter, letters to the Defendant came from the Claimant’s representative BW Legal. The first, dated 25th October 2021 increased the demand from £60 to £160. This included a £100 PCN charge, plus “our client’s debt recovery costs of £60” – £60 more just for sending just one automatically-sent letter. That demand for £160 was echoed in letters of 9th December 2021, 10th January 2022 and 24th January 2022. The Claim Form dated 8th April 2022 was for £249.28 comprising £164.28 (the same £160, with £4.28 interest added), plus £35 Court fee, and further legal costs added by BW Legal - namely £50 on top of the £60 debt recovery costs included in the Amount Claimed. The latter two sums effectively made £110 in legal fees, which is more than double the £50 allowed by the consumer-protecting cap on legal fees.

 

On 13th April 2022, the Defendant acknowledged service online. Soon afterwards and apparently in response to that, he received a letter from BW legal dated 19th April 2022 which told him, “If you defend the claim, the court will then set a hearing date where a judge will then consider both parties' statements and either award a County Court Judgment ("CCJ") against you, or dismiss the claim. Such hearings will result in additional costs & fees being incurred which we would seek to recover from you if we are successful.”

 

BW Legal’s assertion that in event the Defendant loses the Judge will “award a County Court Judgment (CCJ) against (the Defendant)” was worrying, but incorrect. If PPS were to win, the Defendant would have 30 days to pay - and there could be no CCJ if he paid within that time.

 

The same goes for the final sentence, “Such hearings will result in additional costs and fees (plural) being incurred which we would seek to recover from you…”. The £50 consumer-protecting cap on legal fees applies in event of a claim being contested, thus all that BW Legal might be able to add in event the Defendant continues to defend his claim is a hearing fee.

 

Further, BW Legal by asserting that, “we (i.e., BW Legal itself) would seek to recover (additional costs and fee) from you”, they seem to be threatening the Defendant with further and unjustified costs and fees (plural) – and for their own benefit, not for that of their client PPS.

 

BW Legal’s letter of 19th April misled the Defendant and caused him unnecessary distress and anxiety. Its timing, just six days after acknowledgement of service makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that it was sent as a deliberate ploy, with intent to cause the Defendant distress and anxiety and discourage him from continuing his defence.

 

BW Legal’s claim for £60 'debt recovery fee' in addition to £50 ‘legal representatives’ costs’, their failure to follow Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, and their letter dated 19th appear to breach StaRs (Solicitors Regulation Authority standards and regulations). The Defendant will make a complaint to the SRA against both BW Legal and their Mr  [Removed by Forum Team], whose name appears on the Claim Form.

 

The court is asked to take the conduct and non-compliance of the Claimant and their legal representatives into account when giving directions for the management of proceedings.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

 

5. On 6th September 2021, the Defendant drove his wife, and his sister and his brother-in-law to Exmouth from their homes in Kent, for a week’s holiday. The brother-in-law is elderly, has various serious medical conditions, and cannot walk far.

 

On arrival in Exmouth that afternoon, the Defendant drove to a branch of Co-Op Food for his party to buy provisions for four people for a week. The defendant found a car park at the rear of the Co-Op, which opened off a dead-end street whose name is unknown to the Defendant. The Defendant does not recall seeing any parking signage on display at the entrance. He drove in and may well have entered the car park at 1441 hours, the entry time recorded by the Claimants camera.

 

The Defendant reversed his car into a bay near the Co-Op, from which where there was a passageway leading to the front of the Co-Op and its entrance. He then saw a nearby parking sign, but it was impossible to read from the car. The defendant got out of the car leaving its engine running and door open. He thoroughly inspected said sign while his passengers exited and went to do the shop. The tightly packed wording on the sign was complicated, confusing and in small font, but the Defendant understood its gist to be that only parking by authorised vehicles was allowed. Whether parking by Co-Op customers might make their vehicles “authorised” was unclear. The Defendant did not think to photograph the sign or the car park.

 

The Defendant decided not to risk parking and drove out of the car park. His car was only in there for a brief time; just enough to stop, disembark passengers and read the sign, and for him to decide to leave and drive out again. The car was there for a few minutes at most and almost certainly left by 1450 hours at the latest, which is within the reasonable time allowed to make an informed decision to leave.

 

The Defendant did not leave his car unattended in the car park at any point and did not park there. Signage was forbidding, so there was no contract to break.

 

Para 13 of the International Parking Committee’s Code of Conduct, then in force and which the Creditor was signed-up to, states, “Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land.”

 

The Defendant’s car was followed to the exit gate by a large delivery truck; the Defendant specifically remembers this because said vehicle was driven uncomfortably close to the rear of his car as he approached the exit gate, which caused him concern at the time.

 

The ANPR photographs show that the camera seems to be located directly opposite the entrance to the car park and probably no more than three metres up. The Defendant believes that the truck that followed his car out, which was much higher than his car, shielded his car from said camera as he approached the gateway. That resulted in an exit photograph not being taken. Alternatively, an exit photograph of the Defendant’s car was taken, but the Claimant forgot or was unwilling to provide it.

 

The Defendant drove elsewhere until summoned by his passengers. He then returned to meet them outside the vehicle entrance to the car park. After seating his passengers and loading their shopping into the boot, he reversed into the gateway to the car park to turn round, which was the only way to get out of the narrow dead-end street and drove away.

 

The Defendant admits that the car in shadow with invisible number plate as shown in the ANPR image is likely to be his car and that 1524 hours as shown on the image is probably when he reversed in and out of the gateway to turn his car around.

 

The Defendant is of the view that the ANPR camera ought to have taken two photographs of the car in quick succession, one of it passing the threshold backwards - and another of it exiting forwards at once afterwards. However, only one has been supplied suggesting the Claimant again forgot or was unwilling to supply the other.

Coupon-mad

the Defendant drove.

In which case you must dump ALL the earlier points about the POFA.  That's only relevant to a keeper defendant. Irrelevant to a driver.

The stuff about the BW Legal complaint is too detailed.  Just mention in one sentence that the Claimant's (and their agents') letters have bern misleading and intimidating.  You can expand on that in your WS later on.

RN61

Coupon-mad said:

the Defendant drove.

In which case you must dump ALL the earlier points about the POFA.  That's only relevant to a keeper defendant. Irrelevant to a driver.

The stuff about the BW Legal complaint is too detailed.  Just mention in one sentence that the Claimant's (and their agents') letters have bern misleading and intimidating.  You can expand on that in your WS later on.

Received, I'll revise - and thank you again. Once complete I'll hang fire until latest submission date then email. Best,

RN61

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED

Latest threatening letter, dated 9th, following submission of my Defence on 5th. More weasely misleading words which I will ignore, apart from incorporating into complaint, I guess. 

Coupon-mad

Complain online to the SRA that BW Legal are intimidating and misleading people who defend parking court claims, telling them it is 'likely a CCJ will be entered'.  Which doesn't happen and is in fact not true, if a consumer Defendant (rarely) loses, because they'd just pay within 30 days.  No CCJ.

That is a misleading letter and in your opinion the SRA should investigate BW Legal's communications with consumer victims of the rogue parking industry, because that letter appears to a reasonable person to lack the integrity and fairness expected of SRA members under their Standards.

DE_612183

it's very clever words...

 "likely" a CCJ "may" be entered against you

 - I'm sure in O level English language there was a word for that!

patient_dream

Dave46049 said:

it's very clever words...

 "likely" a CCJ "may" be entered against you

 - I'm sure in O level English language there was a word for that!

There is .... but as it's BWLegal, we have to keep it simple .... "RUBBISH"

BWL know all about that

patient_dream

RN61 said:

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED

Latest threatening letter, dated 9th, following submission of my Defence on 5th. More weasely misleading words which I will ignore, apart from incorporating into complaint, I guess. 

These BWLegal letters get more pathetic as time goes on

Send to the SRA as said and if it does go to court, show a judge just how low his profession has stooped

This junk mail scenario is all part of the clamp down by government

And you don't owe £249.28 ... THE FAKE HAS BEEN ADDEDD

Who is a judge going to believe ... A FAKER or that government has banned these fakes ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7u5SdjDSQQ