Multiple FCNs from Napier Parking

imulsion

How's this? It feels a little overkill but I'm not sure how far to go with it

Dear Sirs,

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 should any further action be pursued without due merit.

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.

In addition, the LOC contains a monetary breakdown of your claim, which includes £60 for "Total debt recover costs". 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.

I await your response.

Yours faithfully,
[name]

Coupon-mad

Drop the mention of DJ Grand.  It is hopeless to rely on that because BW Legal appealed that decision and it was overturned!

I much prefer the one @B789 provided, but I think I wrote it so I would say that!

Answers below:

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. 

Nope. It is unconscionable to add £60 per PCN but not a reason to get a case 'cancelled'.

My concerns are as follows:

 - Will I have to go through this process 6 times

Not if you reply telling them to consolidate the claim, as per my version.

 - Will I have to defend myself 6 times
As above

 - Will the accumulated FCNs count against me in court
No.
Read the new statutory Code coming in from the Government.  It says 'picking up or setting down a passenger' is not a parking period.
I was in the DLUHC Steering Group that helped write it...!

What are my options here? How should I proceed?

1.  Read the NEWBIES thread second post and stop trying to write a LBC response based on an out of date case which would cause BW Legal to laugh at your lack of knowledge about the DJ Grand decision.

2.  Take photos of the lack of signs visible.  You will need them in 2024.

3.  Read this: this, which is re the new CoP:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6463361/dluhc-private-parking-code-government-launches-call-for-evidence-discussion-thread/p1

4.  Please please (please) do this and give the Government your evidence and tell them how receiving extortionate 3 figure demands feels:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6471857/please-reply-to-question-4-of-the-governments-call-for-evidence-re-the-level-of-parking-charges

It's one email. One question. Change the law...

imulsion

@Coupon-mad

Ah. I was not aware of that overturning, now I have some egg on my face as I have already sent the letter. Shall I just wait for the court papers? I get the feeling that now I've referenced an overturned legal decision they will have smelled blood.

Coupon-mad

They'll just reply setting you straight (laughing behind their greasy palms).  It changes nothing but shows them that you are a likely victim worth pursuing.

Don't send responses so quickly.  Wait for advice next time.  Stop and wait for us all to chip in (at least 3 days...just sit on your hands and let us guide you) before rushing to use the wrong thing.

imulsion

Thanks for your help. I supposed I rushed into it. One little card I still have up my sleeve is to get my girlfriend to talk to the higher ups and see if anything can be done. In the meantime I'll sit tight until I receive court papers, then come back here.

imulsion

Sorry to bother you again @Coupon-mad, just one more thing comes to mind. Now I've replied in the way I have, how do I ask them to consolidate the claims? I have only received a single LOC so far, and I only know about the other 5 because Napier Parking replied to my letter of complaint to Camp Hopson. I don't know whether they've instructed BW about the others. Do I just wait for more letters to come through the door?

Coupon-mad

Wait till they respond.

imulsion

Just a quick update to this thread, I haven't heard back from either BWLegal or the PPC in regards to the emails I sent them, however this morning I received a second letter of claim for a different PCN. Seems they aren't planning on consolidating them as of yet.

Coupon-mad

Ok.  I know I mentioned it already, but:

I hope you are using your case and £170 aggressive debt demands as evidence this month (TIME LIMITED) to answer the DLUHC's question 4 (explained here):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6471857/please-reply-to-question-4-of-the-governments-call-for-evidence-re-the-level-of-parking-charges

Even if you never got the debt demand threats -  or threw them away - PLEASE RESPOND TO THE GOVERNMENT ANYWAY, talking about how it feels like a huge scam to be forced to defend possibly more than one exaggerated claim for hundreds of pounds, due to imaginary money being added 'per PCN' which is appalling extortion.

Even bailiffs can only add ONE £75 enforcement fee for a debt of up to £1000 - after the debt has been proved in court - so why is this rogue industry getting away with adding false sums per PCN? Obviously it doesn't cost more to chase multiple PCNs, than one!  Same template demands.

Everyone here is encouraged to send the DLUHC an email attaching pictures of the letters and £xxx ludicrous threats. Tell the Government how you feel.

In your case, make it clear that having multiple PCNs is not because you are a rogue driver.  In fact you feel utterly targeted.

We are so close to banning the add-ons!

PLEASE HELP US GET THIS OVER THE LINE.

Evidence is key! 

imulsion

Hi all,

Bit of an update since I last posted here. First of all I've prepared my response to the DLUHC call for evidence (haven't submitted yet as I need to scan the threatening letters as evidence). Hope it does some good.

Secondly, I have received further communication from the PPC. After some faffing around with one of the higher-ups at the retailer, it seems I have been offered a "discount" as it were on the PCNs which have not yet made it to BWLegal. I'm sure you've seen it before, essentially "if you settle the other 4 cases with BWLegal these 2 will only cost you £20 each". Which would mean a total of £680 to settle everything with them. As far as I'm concerned this is a pathetic "offer": since the fake £60 charges don't stand up in court, I estimate losing in court would cost me more or less the same amount (6*£100 + court fees). Is that an accurate assessment of the situation? Would anyone recommend I just pay it rather than fight? I don't know about my chances of winning this particular case, although it seems like few people lose in court.

Thirdly, when it comes to BW themselves, I still have received no communication with regard to my poorly conceived response to their first Letter of Claim. I suspect the email I used for them (disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk) is no longer monitored (unless they usually take this long...?). The only way to contact them is through their website contact form, which has a 500 character limit. You can attach files though, so I was thinking of responding with a letter as an attachment complaining about the £60 addition. I'd appreciate help formulating that, if you think it's a good idea. 

Lastly, I also received responses from Napier as to the data protection requests I submitted. They responded to the SAR with all the photos taken by the ANPR cameras. The driver cannot even be seen, let alone identified, and the timestamps show I was there for ~20 minutes at most. This seems like pretty weak "evidence" to me as a layman, perhaps you disagree. They also responded to my request to erase my old address from their records, by rejecting that request on the grounds that the fees remain unpaid and they need it for "accurate record keeping and DVLA compliance/audits". This to me seems spurious, and I am concerned that any court papers that will be issued will be sent to my previous address. Is this a valid concern? Has the DPO acted wrongly here?

I appreciate all your help so far and look forward to hearing what you have to say on this.

Cheers!