BWLegal Letter of Claim - Gatwick Airport / wrong driver

Coupon-mad

It will involve you writing stuff relevant to your case but in an angry, combative tone. I know you can do it as you recognise the parking industry are 'bottom feeders'!

This person has just written their own robust rebuttal "get stuffed" LBC response, based on what they gleaned from other threads:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80112296/#Comment_80112296

You can do the same!

KGSoloMan5000

Coupon-mad thank you for this. 

This is the letter I've written and shamelessly copied a lion share from the one you've provided, can you tell me if it will be ok? 

Dear Sirs,  

Following from your letter of claim dated 17th of May 2023 with Reference number xxxxxx, 

I am seeking debt advice, but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017. 

I am writing to formally dispute the false claims of inflated debt that have been asserted against me in relation to alleged stopping at the drop-off zone at Gatwick Airport on 24/10/2022. This was not the case. Wrong turn was taken and lane in question was used to circle back. The car has never stopped. 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. 

I was issued Parking Charged Notice to Keeper of the alleged offense, yet your client National Car Parks (EUK) Limited have not provided a single piece of evidence proving that I was the driver of the vehicle.  

Which I was not.  

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. 

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. 

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. 

I have sent your client a SAR. 

Yours faithfully 

 

Also I had a bit of an issue trying to find an email address of BW Legal, I have several - obviously parking@@bwlegal.co.uk is the one to go for?

KGSoloMan5000

Or should I go with : 

'I respond as the registered keeper in relation to this false claim and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver' ?

KGSoloMan5000

Okay found it... sorry for polluting this thread   
disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk

I'll wait for some feedback regarding the wording of the letter itself and send it later today perhaps

Coupon-mad

Don't say offense (US spelling!) or even 'offence' (correct spelling) because it wasn't one.  This isn't a fine and isn't an offence.

THIS IS IMPORTANT:

I was issued Parking Charged Notice to Keeper yet your client National Car Parks (EUK) Limited have not provided a single piece of evidence proving that I was the driver of the vehicle.  
Which I was not.  

Is that true?

You were not driving?  That kills it if true!

Why not simply quote the PoFA Schedule 4 (section 56) Guidance and the fact that there can be no 'keeper liability' on Airport land?

Like this:

I am aware that the Airports Act 1986 indicates that Gatwick is an Airport Authority and Highways Authority, and thus this location falls under statutory control. This is key in making a determination over whether a registered keeper who was not driving can be held liable or not.

Under section 3 of schedule 4 of PoFA, relevant land means any land other than land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. This means that in this case, the parking operator may only pursue the driver of the vehicle.

The driver was not me and will NOT be named because the PoFA stopped short of handing bullyboy ex-clampers that power and I'm not throwing them under your roboclaim juggernaut. Go swivel.

Or read the law before harassing keepers.  Here's the official DFT Guidance in case you are incapable of reading and interpreting legislation:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

See '4. On what type of land does Schedule 4 apply?'

If you are unsure what this means you may wish to seek legal advice because you are clearly not a solicitor.

(Then threaten a counterclaim if they fail to wind their necks in).

Remove the bit about seeking debt advice.

Save that '30 day hold' for later if you want to delay it, say, if they start snapping at your heels again at Christmas.  I think this will stop them though.

KGSoloMan5000

Coupon-mad this is amazing 

Yes it is true, my fiancé was driving that day and we really did take a wrong turn, passed the drop off zone without ever stopping and the 'evidence' they provided was two snaps of the front of my car nearly two minutes apart (I assume it might have been tempered with too?) with blacked out windscreen. 

I seriously love the wording of this letter, can I really send it like that? Lol

I have removed the seeking advice and 30 day delay completely and added counterclaim. 

Thank you so much for this... 

Coupon-mad

Yes send it and use the phrases 'go swivel' and 'if you fail to wind your necks in'.

Always attack parking scams.  No politeness.

KGSoloMan5000

All done! In case of an actual reply from them, I'll be sure to post it here straight away!

Thank you again.

Coupon-mad

What fun!  Love scam baiting and scam beating.

Half_way

For future reference, never attempt to name the driver.
Terms such as I, he, she, wife, fiance, girlfriend, mum, uncle, aunt, friend etc should not be used