NCP fine and Trace Debt Recovery letter

Coupon-mad

Yes it does. You need to search the forum.

KeithP

A quick search of the internet found this on the talkaboutdebt website...

pixie_man

Thanks again. I have sent it to them via their website. It didn't let me to submit it earlier becasue I didn't put my phone number. I got the below response. Should I wait or still send them email to that enquires@bwlegal..:

Contact Form Date: 12 December 2023 Our Reference:xxxxx Query Type: Something else

 

Dear,

Thank you for contacting BW Legal. We want to share with you what will happen next and it is important that you read the whole email so that you do not miss any important information.

 

Response Time

We are currently working through a high volume of enquiries. Our team aims to respond within 7-28 days, but it may take longer due to the number of messages we receive. We appreciate your patience and assure you that we are working diligently to address your query. Rest assured, your matter with us has been placed on hold whilst we review your correspondence. Please do not send any follow up emails/contact forms to us about this enquiry as this may delay the response times. If you need urgent assistance you should always call us on 0113 487 0432 or speak to our helpful agents via our secure webchat available on our website contact page. Should you wish to access your account online, you can do this via our customer portal where you can manage all aspects of your account. You can also raise a query or speak to us via webchat directly on the portal.

Yours sincerely,

BW Legal

This automatic response is sent from a NO REPLY email address.

pixie_man

Hi I receive the below response. They basically responded the same way NCP did.:

As per our Clients appeal response it can be confirmed that our records show that several payments were made successfully via the payment machines before, during and after your parking period, however no payment was found for your vehicle, matching the vehicle registration number. Please find your Statement of Account enclosed. The Parking Charge issued is for the sum of £100.00 and our additional costs amount to £70.00. The relevant Code of Practice laid out by the International Parking Community (IPC) states that £100.00 is a reasonable amount to charge for the breach of contract within our Client's car parks.  The additional cost of £70.00 represents the nature and type of work undertaken by debt recovery agents in the collection of the balance of the unpaid Parking Charge.  Our Client is satisfied that you remain liable for the cost of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and the costs of debt recovery, due to non-payment of the charge in question.  The balance of £170.00 remains due and owing.  If you are unable to make payment for the balance in full, we do offer affordable repayment plans which can be paid in instalments.  Should you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us on 0113 487 0432.

What shall I do next? Wait for the court? 

Coupon-mad

Please find your Statement of Account enclosed. The Parking Charge issued is for the sum of £100.00 and our additional costs amount to £70.00.

'Our' additional costs, eh?

The legal firm are saying it is their 'costs'!  We already know it is - but here we have it, in black & white.

Why is the consumer receiving a demand for monies to pay the bulk litigator?!

What service was provided to the consumer?

Who is the 'creditor' here?

IMHO that proves the +£70 enriches the bulk litigators and thus, funds 'parking bulk litigation' to continue its steamroller to the abusive tune of up to half a million parking claims per year.

They aren't even pretending that the added £70 is part of their client's contractual charges ('parking related charges' owed to the 'creditor', as the POFA Sch4 calls the only recoverable charges).

Thus = indisputably as a matter of statute law, the added £70 isn't owed to the creditor and is unrecoverable from a keeper under the POFA.  The parking firm has not incurred these costs and they are not 'parking related charges'.

IMHO it's clear to me, that the added fake fee is nothing more than 'double recovery' by a bulk litigator, who would otherwise be limited to the Small Claims £50 legal fees cap.

This industry makes the public fund their 'outrageous scam'... it beggars belief that we are still having to tell the Government this FIVE YEARS after the Act was passed!

i.e. victims are being expected to pay over the odds - above the MoJ cap - to enrich the bulk litigator and fund their own court case against them(!) or alternatively, they can avoid court by paying BW Legal £70 and the parking firm (the creditor) £100.

ONLY SEEN IN PARKING.

No other industry.  How do they get away with this 'extorting money from motorists'?

This is why we see millions of parking claims but not millions of other trader v consumer claims (dentistry & vets fees are comparable sums but there's no claims culture).

Only in parking because they fly under the FCA radar and have invented their own abusive model. This is why bulk litigators have exploded onto the scene as a parasite industry.

And very nearly got away with it when the MHCLG was duped in 2021 to initially - erroneously - accept what they called the 'industry standard fee' (which made all good consumer side people's jaws hit the floor):

"36. To reduce harm to motorists, we propose to cap the level of debt recovery fees at the existing industry level £70. In setting this cap, we have taken into consideration the deterrent effect, the amount of court fees and the costs to operators of enforcing parking charges."

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-charges-discount-rates-debt-collection-fees-and-appeals-charter-further-technical-consultation/private-parking-charges-discount-rates-debt-collection-fees-and-appeals-charter-further-technical-consultation

I mean...that rationale made no sense whatsoever. It was frankly embarrassing to read.

Extortionate 'debt fees' are provably not a deterrent to drivers.  They don't affect a driver's decisions! Come on...

And there are no 'costs to operators'. This is not a charge owed to the 'creditor' (POFA definition). It's third party enrichment.

And 'Court fees' are capped and don't for a minute affect pre-action 'template reminder' or LBC stage.

You can't just add fees twice and hope the Government fall for it because some suits (connected to/heavily influenced by the bulk litigators) said it is industry standard' - nothing to see here - and (cue the '2012 style' scaremongering):

"waah! If you take our added fee millions away, we'll sue more."

Errrr.... how, without the financial reward?

Not only that, in 2021 the MHCLG presented the above as a fait accompli and failed to ask ANYTHING about it in that Public Consultation.

Not a single question was asked about the astonishingly naive decision to "allow £70 but it's OK folks because we'll tell the PPCs to put on the signs so they and the parasite industry 'legals' can share the spoils, taking it all from the pockets of the public, calling it all 'part of the contract' and thus preventing any Judge from ever stepping in or being able to assess the fairness of either sum"...

  

Sigh...that just makes the PCN £170...but with a massive £70 of it not going to 'the creditor' to whom parking charges might be owed.

In 2021 the MHCLG didn't even ask "are we wrong?"

Errr, yes... Dangerously wrong in terms of enabling more court claims & CCJs and inviting even more low bulk litigators to leap on this money pot bandwagon.

It's not about making extortionate 'fees' transparent... that doesn't make the 'claims & CCJ aims' culture (that has brought the CNBC to its knees in 5 years) OK.

Luckily, things have moved on a lot, but my goodness, what if PPC World has managed to wheedle their way into convincing the DLUHC that added fees on top of a contract are 'normal' as they did the equivalent MHCLG in 2021?

I dread to think how claim numbers will increase for two years, until the DLUHC realise their catastrophic mistake of adding any level of incentivising court with 'bulk litigator fees' that exist in no other consumer-trader scenario.

If they do.

And if they do, even a %, that will make a mockery of the Late Fees Legislation that carefully exempted consumer contracts as 'inappropriate' for late fees and caps any B2B £1000 claim at a single £40 late fee add-on.

If the DLUHC add 30% (as mistakenly thought is the norm for utility firms at reminder stage - it isn't) then that's sending a Government message that even though B2B contracts are capped at a £40 late fee, consumers can be clobbered for an eye-watering £300 by a known rogue industry whose conduct is so bad they've had regulation enforced on them.

Anyway, time will tell in the above case and in yours:

Wait for the court claim because no-one should ever pay £170 to anyone connected to PPC World. Especially not a bulk litigator.

Coupon-mad

Please show a screenshot of the 'Statement of Account' (an actual screenshot not copied & pasted words).   Redact your data.

pixie_man

Coupon-mad said:

Please show a screenshot of the 'Statement of Account' (an actual screenshot not copied & pasted words).   Redact your data.

Funny bit is that they haven't attached any documents, account summary or anything. The text I shared is all that was in their response. I didnt set up account on their website, so I am not sure what account summary they are refering to.  

patient_dream

WOW, a legal actually admits the fake £70 covers their own costs

Trace also added £70 .... whose costs is it ????

They refer to the IPC code of practice but the IPC only copied this from the BPA WHICH IS ONLY A DREAM FROM THE UN-REGULATED ATA
It is a scam add-on 

In the past, BWLegal have called the fake add-on ... ADMIN ... DEBT RECOVERY COSTS all of which are a feeble attempt of double recovery

In a real world, a legal/solicitor would charge their client win or lose. But these bods prefer the scam method and that is FAKE ADD-ONS 

BWLegal has a fierce competitor called DCBL  who call the fake £70 ... DAMAGES

So BWLegal admit to adding costs when their claim already includes legal costs of £50 ??? 
A clear case of Double recovery and Abuse of Process

What will a judge make of this deception

Coupon-mad

pixie_man said:

Coupon-mad said:

Please show a screenshot of the 'Statement of Account' (an actual screenshot not copied & pasted words).   Redact your data.

Funny bit is that they haven't attached any documents, account summary or anything. The text I shared is all that was in their response. I didnt set up account on their website, so I am not sure what account summary they are refering to.  

Reply and say:

Dear Sirs,

1.  The reply appears to have omitted the 'Statement of Account enclosed'.  Nothing was enclosed.   Kindly explain.

2.  Given that BW Legal have stated that the added £70 is "our costs" (as opposed to part of their client's claim) the keeper declines to pay because:

(a) only 'parking related charges owed to the creditor' are recoverable from a registered keeper - see Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012;

and

(b) BW Legal are not the creditor;

and

(c) BW Legal have not provided any service of any value, and in any event the contact was unsolicited, unwanted and at best it is a third party service provided for the parking firm.  They can and should pay for that, and (unless the parking firm is exempt) VAT applies to a debt recovery fee.

3. Given the above, is the £70 that you have described as "our costs" inclusive of the VAT element, or not?  Kindly break the £70 fee down.  Is the parking firm going to pay the VAT element of the DRA fee (adding VAT on top of the £70) or is the consumer being expected to pay the VAT, already calculated within that £70?

These are simple questions for any firm engaged in 'debt recovery' and charging for it.

Failure to adequately answer within 14 days will see BW Legal reported to HMRC who will be encouraged to scrutinise VAT records on all the £60 or £70 fees/costs collected by BW Legal, going back as many years as HMRC see fit.

Yours faithfully, 

pixie_man

Coupon-mad said:

pixie_man said:

Coupon-mad said:

Please show a screenshot of the 'Statement of Account' (an actual screenshot not copied & pasted words).   Redact your data.

Funny bit is that they haven't attached any documents, account summary or anything. The text I shared is all that was in their response. I didnt set up account on their website, so I am not sure what account summary they are refering to.  

Reply and say:

Dear Sirs,

1.  The reply appears to have omitted the 'Statement of Account enclosed'.  Nothing was enclosed.   Kindly explain.

2.  Given that BW Legal have stated that the added £70 is "our costs" (as opposed to part of their client's claim) the keeper declines to pay because:

(a) only 'parking related charges owed to the creditor' are recoverable from a registered keeper - see Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012;

and

(b) BW Legal are not the creditor;

and

(c) BW Legal have not provided any service of any value, and in any event the contact was unsolicited, unwanted and at best it is a third party service provided for the parking firm.  They can and should pay for that, and (unless the parking firm is exempt) VAT applies to a debt recovery fee.

3. Given the above, is the £70 that you have described as "our costs" inclusive of the VAT element, or not?  Kindly break the £70 fee down.  Is the parking firm going to pay the VAT element of the DRA fee (adding VAT on top of the £70) or is the consumer being expected to pay the VAT, already calculated within that £70?

These are simple questions for any firm engaged in 'debt recovery' and charging for it.

Failure to adequately answer within 14 days will see BW Legal reported to HMRC who will be encouraged to scrutinise VAT records on all the £60 or £70 fees/costs collected by BW Legal, going back as many years as HMRC see fit.

Yours faithfully, 

Here is teir response:

Thank you for contacting us, please find our response below: Good morning,  As previously advised the Parking Charge issued is for the sum of £100.00 and our additional costs amount to £70.00. The additional cost of £70.00 represents the nature and type of work undertaken by debt recovery agents in the collection of the balance of the unpaid Parking Charge. Our Client is satisfied that you remain liable for the cost of the PCN and the costs of debt recovery, due to non-payment of the charge in question. This additional cost is deemed acceptable under the British Parking Association's (BPA) code of practice.  Please also be advised BW Legal are not an appeals service. You have already appealed this matter and your appeal was rejected. Please see attached your appeal response. The balance of £170.00 remains due and owing. If you have any further issues or new questions that you would like us to assist you with, we kindly request that you use the contact options below to submit a new query. Just to add they attached the letter with NCP response to my appeal from last Year. They did not answer any of the questions I asked them. I also received another email saying that my Letter of Claim expired in December, but they want to give me one more chance to pay... My question is should I continue exchanging emails with BWLegal or just ignore and wait for the court? thank in advance.