Multiple FCNs from Napier Parking

imulsion

Hi everyone,

New here and need some advice. Last Friday I received a Letter of Claim from BWLegal on behalf of Napier Parking (the first communication I received) about an alleged parking infraction. My girlfriend works at Camp Hopson in Newbury, whose car park is managed by Napier. I regularly go to pick her up (she doesn't yet drive) after work, and have parked in the car park outside of business hours for ~15 mins or so without leaving the vehicle, purely to collect her and take her home. After the initial shock wore off, I began researching this sort of thing, leading me to this forum. I have read the newbie thread etc. extensively. Napier is a IPC member, so I haven't bothered with the appeals process. Instead, I took the advice of complaining directly to the retailer. I sent a polite but suitably outraged email to Camp Hopson for their behaviour, after sending an SAR to the parking company. I woke up today to an email from Napier, to whom it seems Camp Hopson forwarded my complaint. Evidently they couldn't care less about the circumstances (surprise surprise) so no dice there.

However, the email also stated that this is only 1 of 6 FCNs I have on file with this company. To reiterate, the only communication I have received thus far is the Letter of Claim for the single FCN. They claim this is because I haven't updated my address with the DVLA (even though I thought I had as my current address is on my driver's licence. I will be checking the logbook is up to date but that's by the by). 

Reading this thread - www.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6082705/bw-legal - gave me some hope, in that BWLegal have attempted to unlawfully charge me £60 extra as well, which seems a pretty strong legal reason for this to be cancelled. 

My concerns are as follows:
 - Will I have to go through this process 6 times
 - Will I have to defend myself 6 times
 - Will the accumulated FCNs count against me in court

What are my options here? How should I proceed?

Thank you very much in advance for any advice, I'm in some shock here.

Cheers

imulsion

Got the link to that thread wrong, sorry

www.forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6082705/bw-legal

imulsion

Sorry, third time lucky

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6082705/bw-legal

B789

Welcome. The address on your driving licence has nothing whatsoever to do with the address registered on your car's V5C logbook. You must update that immediately as you could be fined up to £1,000 by the DVLA. You can do it simply online. Napier will have requested your details from the DVLA based on what is recorded on your V5C.

You must email the Napier DPO immediately and instruct them to "erase" your old address and update their records with your current address. The word "erase" is highlighted for a reason. Failing to do so could result in you getting a CCJ by default.

As you are at LBC stage, you should respond robustly to the LBC, demanding that they provide you will all the evidence they intend to rely on should they actually issue a claim. If they issue a claim for only one of the PCNs, subsequent ones can be better defended as they will have breached certain legal protocols and if they try to add the fake £60 add-on to each of the other claims, that will be another defence that could get the claims dismissed. It is an abuse of process for them to file multiple claims for basically the same issue.

For now, I don't think it is worth giving them a heads-up about consolidating all the claims together. You are dealing with intellectually malnourished scammers and you should never do their work for them.

For now, re-read the second post of the Newbies/FAQ thread to refresh yourself on the necessary steps.

imulsion

Hi B789,

Thank you for your advice. I didn't realise that by updating my address with the DVLA for a new licence it "didn't count" for the V5C. An oversight on my part, I have now completed the online application for a new V5C for the new address. Similarly I have emailed the DPO as you advised with my new address.

Do you think it likely that they will issue a single claim to the county court with all the charges bundled together? Imagining their point of view, since they lose so many of these cases when they actually end up in court, it seems worthwhile for them to forget about the £60 on the LBC and issue a claim for £600 (the sum of the parking charges), perhaps with a single £60 added? Presumably they would need a separate LBC for this? The single LBC I have received so far is for only £160, so I assume they would be chasing each one individually at this point?

I will attempt to draft a response to the LBC and post it here for feedback before I send it

Many thanks for your help

imulsion

Here is my draft for the response to the LOC:

Dear Sir,

In response to the Letter of Claim (LOC) issued by you on 01/09/23, reference number [REDACTED], I would like to inform you that I am seeking debt advice, and I deny any and all alleged debt, including additional charges you claim are incurred.

I demand that you provide me without delay all evidence that you intend to use against me should this matter proceed to the courts. 

In addition, the LOC contains a monetary breakdown of your claim, which includes £60 for "Total debt recover costs". It is my understanding that such additional charges are unlawful, as ruled by DJ Grand in his 2019 ruling in Southampton against your firm. I demand therefore you provide me with the legal authority for adding on this cost, bearing in mind that I will refer to your reply as evidence in court.

In light of this blatant defiance of a previous court ruling, I would like to inform you also that I will be reporting your firm to the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority (SRA) for Abuse of Process.

I await your response.

Yours faithfully,
[name]


Any feedback? 

imulsion

As a side note, I don't actually have an email address for them as the LOC tells me to go through their webform. I'm suspicious of this since I then don't have access to the communications I've sent them. Is this the case? 

B789

Google is your friend and this is their published contact email address: contact@bwlegal.co.uk

The only reason to request a 30-day extension for debt advice is if you need extra time to prepare for anything. Just delaying for the sake of it is not necessarily in your interest. If you do need the extra time, then you need to submit it as close to their original 30-day deadline.

I would suggest you do a search on the forum for other LBC/LoC responses as there are some good ones by @Coupon-mad which would probably be a bit more "stinging" to them. You may as well have a bit of fun with their discomfort if you are going to respond to an LBC.

Here is one that I found as an example that you could extract something useful from:

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 XX/XX/XXXX. 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 XX/XX/XXXX and previously on XX/XX/XXX, 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

1505grandad

"As I have already evidenced to your clients, payment for parking on the alleged date was made in good faith....."

I don't think any payment was made:-

" My girlfriend works at Camp Hopson in Newbury, whose car park is managed by Napier. I regularly go to pick her up (she doesn't yet drive) after work, and have parked in the car park outside of business hours for ~15 mins or so without leaving the vehicle, purely to collect her and take her home. 

imulsion

Hi guys,

Thanks for the info. 1505grandad is right to say I didn't make any payment, but then I think B789 was just providing that letter as an example which I could draw on. I will not reference the fact I didn't buy a ticket in the response.

As for the quoted response - it looks convincing to a layman such as I, but as I barely understand a word of it it's a little tricky to know which parts I should include. I was hoping mentioning the fact that the £60 charge is unlawful would be sufficient. Any recommendations?

Cheers

B789

1505grandad said:

"As I have already evidenced to your clients, payment for parking on the alleged date was made in good faith....."

I don't think any payment was made:-

" My girlfriend works at Camp Hopson in Newbury, whose car park is managed by Napier. I regularly go to pick her up (she doesn't yet drive) after work, and have parked in the car park outside of business hours for ~15 mins or so without leaving the vehicle, purely to collect her and take her home. 

I was only suggesting that the OP take as much from that example and formulate a "robust" response to the LoC.