NCP, BW Legal & Impending LoC

stutaylor86

Hi all, i’ve used the excellent advice on here in the past to defeat CEL (2017, all the way to court date and they withdrew a few days before!) and now i find myself in need again thanks to NCP and their pals BW Legal.

I’ve read the updated Newbies thread and am starting this thread now to post my suggested defence in the coming weeks, however there are a couple of things I just wanted to triple check in advance please - timeline as follows and thanking you all in advance!

6th May 2021          - Parked in an NCP car park in central Manchester and paid for the session via the app
16th August 2021   - received a letter from their ‘debt collection’ cowboys (first contact on the PCN)
                               - emailed NCP with a screenshot of the parking session and asked them to call off their goons (diplomatically)
31st August 2021   - further letter from the Trace collection mob, followed up with forward of above email to NCP asking them to sort it out

January 2022          - letter received from BW Legal, responded with debt advice template from the Newbies thread and emailed NCP with a SAR (they responded           with the PCN details but not the machine record nor the emails i sent them in Aug21 [i know I should have followed up but i didn’t])

26th May 2023        - “Letter of Claim” received from BW Legal 

Having thought this has gone away and in going back over receipts etc to try and understand what NCP’s problem is, I’ve realised what has happened. Essentially we parked in a large NCP street level car park, walked directly onto the street and i took the parking app code off the first sign we walked past. I now realise that that code was for a different car par, run by SIP, that was directly adjacent but basically impossible to distinguish from the street as it was only one row of cars deep and directly opposite the last row in the NCP car park, separated only by a thin yellow rail at licence plate height (thus hidden by cars!).

I have photos of this but i wanted to check whether i should be straight up with the honest mistake in my defence and if that in any way weakens my position?

Additionally, and I’m almost certain of the answer to this, is it worth doing the debt advice response again to this latest BW letter or because I’ve had one already is that redundant? Similarly do i need to respond to this letter due it being the second, or do i still sit tight and wait for the one from the court, at which point do the MCOL acknowledgment and finalise my defence? Their reference to the CPR Pre-Action Protocal and the expectations of the court has wobbled me slightly, which i imagine is exactly what it’s intended to do!

As i say I’m fully intent on fighting this and proposing to share my defence for more help before long, but any advice on the above in the meantime would be brilliant!

Thanks to you all!!

stutaylor86

Can anyone help with advice on the couple of questions in the above please?

Coupon-mad

Not sure how we missed your thread! Sorry!

Same advice as here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80098665/#Comment_80098665

Read all the replies.

Do a "get stuffed" robust response as shown there, and reiterate your dispute (attaching evidence) and sarcastically ask BW if this case was in a drawer for 18 months or were they or their clients deliberately sitting on cases in the hope victims had moved house and they could harvest lucrative inflated default CCJs?

Be as impolite as you dare.

I hate the conduct of the bulk litigators and hope the new DLUHC regulations drive them OUT of the parking industry altogether.

stutaylor86

Coupon-mad said:

Not sure how we missed your thread! Sorry!

Same advice as here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80098665/#Comment_80098665

Read all the replies.

Do a "get stuffed" robust response as shown there, and reiterate your dispute (attaching evidence) and sarcastically ask BW if this case was in a drawer for 18 months or were they or their clients deliberately sitting on cases in the hope victims had moved house and they could harvest lucrative inflated default CCJs?

Be as impolite as you dare.

I hate the conduct of the bulk litigators and hope the new DLUHC regulations drive them OUT of the parking industry altogether.

Thanks very much for your help, those other threads are great so it's hugely appreciated!

I've drafted the following and sent off to them, so will let everyone know what they come back with...

Dear Sirs,

RE: Your reference xxxxxxx

I am writing to formally dispute the false claims of inflated debt that have been asserted against me in relation to a historical parking charge allegedly incurred on 6th May2021. This letter serves as both a comprehensive rebuttal of the aforementioned claims and a stern warning of my intention to vigorously defend my rights and pursue a counterclaim should any further action be pursued without due merit.

As I have already evidenced to your clients, payment for parking on the alleged date was made in good faith and it is your clients inadequate and unclear signage, on what is clearly a pedestrian exit, that led to this being made to an adjacent car park, which in itself is indistinguishable from that operated by your client. I am again providing evidence of this in accompaniment to this letter.

Furthermore, upon careful review of the correspondence received from your firm on 26th May 2023 and previously on 20th January 2022, I was both surprised and deeply concerned by the lack of substantiation provided in support of the alleged debt. The absence of any verifiable evidence, coupled with the obvious discrepancies and procedural errors evident in your communications, has only served to further erode my confidence in the validity of your claims.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has established comprehensive policies and procedures that are designed to ensure that solicitors conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the highest standards of professionalism, ethics, and transparency. In this case, it is abundantly clear that your actions have fallen woefully short of the SRA's guidelines.

Specifically, I would draw your attention to the following breaches of the SRA's policies and procedures:

Failure to Provide Sufficient Evidence: Your failure to provide adequate evidence to substantiate the alleged debt is a blatant violation of the SRA's principles of transparency and fairness. I insist that you immediately provide me with comprehensive documentation supporting your claim, including but not limited to copies of any agreements, invoices, or notices pertaining to the alleged parking charge.

Inflated Debt and Misrepresentation: It has come to my attention that the amount being claimed by your firm far exceeds any reasonable estimation of the alleged debt. This inflated figure appears to be a clear attempt to intimidate and coerce me into an unjust settlement. Such behaviour is expressly prohibited by the SRA's guidelines and constitutes a breach of your professional obligations.

Failure to Conduct a Proper Investigation: Your firm's lack of due diligence in investigating the veracity of the alleged debt is deeply troubling. It is evident that no comprehensive assessment of the facts has been undertaken, leading to erroneous claims being made against me. This negligent approach is contrary to the SRA's requirement for solicitors to act with reasonable skill, care, and diligence.

Given the aforementioned breaches and the overall lack of credibility in your assertions, I hereby demand that all further action in this matter be immediately ceased. This includes any attempts to pursue legal proceedings, commence debt collection activities, or tarnish my reputation in any way.

Failure to comply with this request will leave me with no choice but to defend my rights vigorously through all available legal channels and, furthermore, to initiate a counterclaim against your firm for negligent or deliberate data abuse. To be clear, due to the nature, number and wording of the unrelenting and wholly misleading letters, the entire series of communications constitutes unwarranted harassment.  I dispute the quantum and object to the intimidatory, misleading nature of the entire operation. 

Your clients have no cause of action and must stop. Kindly inform your clients that if a claim is filed, I will counterclaim and I will seek damages for distress and/or breach of statutory duty for a sum of not less than £300, which is at the lower end of established guidance regarding harassment claims, pursuant to the following:

a) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duty and misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”); 

b) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duty arising from breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA');

c) damages for distress caused by breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation ('the GDPR');

d) damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ('the PFHA') ref section 3.

Personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully.  Your clients stand in breach of Article 5 (1) of the GDPR (the requirement for lawfulness, fairness and transparency) and the doctrines of open dealing and good faith in the CRA.  There was inadequate signage, no clear unambiguous terms and no permit scheme or other 'relevant obligation' that related to myself.  Accordingly, the processing of my DVLA data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract”, since no such contract existed. I will be reporting your clients to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for the initial processing and for sharing and allowing my data to be misused by National Car Parks limited and BW Legal to send various misleading communications.

By operating in a predatory fashion with inadequate signage, your clients had no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.  Your client had, and still has, no prospect of furthering their purpose and no legitimate cause to continue processing my data.

In accordance with Principles 1,2 and 5 of the Data Protection Principles they were not permitted to either obtain, process or keep it.  The quantum of the alleged debt is in breach of Schedule 2 of the CRA and the misleading wording of this bombardment of demands from your client, their agents and yourselves, pays no regard to the PAP, the FCA rules or the Regulations cited above in (a).  It is unfair business practice for a parking firm to state that they are a member, yet fail to comply with the applicable Code of Practice, which the Supreme Court took to be effectively 'regulatory'.  The conduct of your client and their agents (including your firm) has amounted to an unfair commercial practice which is prohibited under regulation 3 of the CPTURs and a misleading action within the meaning of regulations 5 and 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b).

In all the premises, the conduct of your clients and their agents amounts to harassment under section 1 of the PFHA.  It is pertinent to adduce the authorities of:

(i) Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd  [2009] EWCA Civ 46

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html

where Sedley LJ held:

[52] ''...For my part I would draw attention to the fact [...] that harassment is a crime as well as a tort. Contrary to what was more than once suggested, this does not modify in any way the constituents of the wrong.

[53] Parliament's intention in passing the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was to criminalise the kind of serious and persistent unwarranted threat which is alleged here, giving a right of civil action as a fallback. In this situation it ought not to be left to hardy individuals to put their savings and homes at risk by suing. The primary responsibility should rest upon local public authorities which possess the means and the statutory powers to bring alleged harassers, however impersonal and powerful, before the local justices.''

and

(ii) Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html

where HHJ Chambers QC concluded at [83]:

''Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the Defendant went about recovering their debt. [...] It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt. Whatever the strength of the suggestion that the courts should only be a last resort, I can see no legitimate comparison between a series of measured warnings which, after full opportunity for response, lead to legal proceedings and what took place. {...there} ...can be no excuse for conduct of which it must be supposed the sole purpose must have been to make the Claimant's life so difficult that he would come to heel. I cannot think that in a society that is otherwise so sensitive of a consumer's position this is conduct that should countenanced.''

 

 

(iii) Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311 which confirms that pecuniary loss is not necessary for compensation to be payable and that pure distress is enough.

By reason of the matters aforesaid I have been obliged to deal with unjustified and aggressive correspondence from your client, their agents and your firm over the course of over two years now.  As a Litigant in Person I have suffered substantial damage and distress, causing sleepless nights, headaches and extreme worry.  I consider myself a robust person but I am only human and will attest to the severe effect on my peace of mind, on oath if required by the Judge.  Your clients are the cause of enormous anxiety for me and my family and it is unacceptable conduct from a group of businesses purporting to be professional enterprises.

I was seriously upset by what has been painted as if it is a credible threat to my credit rating with a CCJ.  It is even more alarming that your most recent ‘letter of claim’ was timed by you or your client's deliberate actions, to arrive over sixteen months since the last correspondence on the matter, for reasons I can only assume are designed to inflict maximum impact.  I am certain that most people would have succumbed to the crippling pressure you exert, and paid to avoid the stress.  If the bullying and misleading conduct aimed at me regarding this alleged PCNs is an example of what your clients and BW Legal do every day, then sanctions by the various authorities are long overdue.

To ensure the proper handling of this dispute and to protect my rights, I request that you provide a written response within 14 days of receipt of this letter. Your clients must take stock of their position and cease immediately.  If your clients ignore this fair warning, as mentioned above I will file a counterclaim, as well as a robust defence and will also pursue my entire costs to this case pursuant to Part 27.14(2)(g) of the Civil Procedure Rules due to their wholly unreasonable conduct.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

Very nice indeed!

stutaylor86

It seems BW Legal are increasing their efforts to make life difficult for anyone that has the misfortune of having to deal with them, i have received the following automated response when using the address parking@bwlegal.co.uk



It pains me to jump through their hoops but i'm wondering if it's worthwhile to get my response letter in? Alternatively i've found the following related email addresses that I could fire it across to and make clear i am considering it delivered?

Prac@bwlegal.co.uk - seems to be some kind of BW Legal subsidiary called PRAC Financial (debt agency unsurprisingly!)
sbarton@bwlegal.co.uk - email provided on the Law Society page for BW Legal (which also includes the names of all the staff (including solicitors) that work there, so I could send to all of them too given the email format is obvious?!)

Castle

stutaylor86 said:

It seems BW Legal are increasing their efforts to make life difficult for anyone that has the misfortune of having to deal with them, i have received the following automated response when using the address parking@bwlegal.co.uk

Except that you are not a customer of BW Legal!

Coupon-mad

Pretty sure @Grizebeck posted a thread only the other week with the (working) BW Legal email address on it.

stutaylor86

Coupon-mad said:

Pretty sure @Grizebeck posted a thread only the other week with the (working) BW Legal email address on it.

Thanks, found the thread! 

It’s disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk and was working as of 1st June, I’ll use it later and report back if any issues. 

I’m tempted to cc the whole mob that work there just so they can all see first hand what we think of them!!

Coupon-mad

I think they know...!

They threatened me with a court claim a couple of years ago. Not for parking.  Nothing happened.

stutaylor86

Coupon-mad said:

I think they know...!

They threatened me with a court claim a couple of years ago. Not for parking.  Nothing happened.

Hopefully this one will go the same way yet, however...

After sending the above letter to the working email, and cc'ing their assigned contact email from the Law Society and a handful of the registered solicitors that i could confidently guess the addresses for, I have today received the below letter in response:



They also attached copies of the PCN and images of every NCP sign in the car park, with the convenient exception of the one i sent to them that is directly next to the adjacent car park payment terminal and shared pedestrian exit that i referenced in the letter.

I assume i'm best just sitting tight now and waiting for the LoC etc from the court, or do i need to engage further to satisfy the pre-actin protocols?