LBC - BW Legal and Total Parking Solutions

loulizbutt

Hi All,

I have read the NEWBIE thread and wanted to check my LBC response is robust and appropriate. I'd like to think they'd actually look at my case properly and end the relentless pursuit but think it will head to the small claims court unnecessarily. Here it is:

I refer to your ‘Letter of Claim’ dated 10 November 2023 but not received until 21 November 2023, informing me of a 30-day period in which to respond.

Limiting the time available in this matter reveals the questionable nature of the individuals involved. I suggest that you date your correspondence accurately to reflect the actual posting date, lest it be perceived as attempting to manipulate the system. Such actions can needlessly induce stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts.

I fully and robustly deny the alleged debt, and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended. I dispute the ‘Particulars of Debt’ which suggest that Terms and Conditions were breached. Full payment was made in good faith for a parking session at the University of Surrey (24745) on January 27th, 2023. The driver does not have control over the data recorded by the pay-by-phone company, which is inaccurate and has been disputed. The driver can only be held responsible for their own acts or omissions; not those of another party or their agents. The terms and conditions do not state at the outset that the driver will be held responsible for the accuracy of the data recorded and maintained by the pay-by-phone company. Indeed, given the information provided in PCN XXXXXXXX payment was made on the same day that the alleged parking offence occurred. Evidently, there has been no reasonable due diligence exhibited in this case, either by Total Parking Solutions Limited or BW Legal. I, therefore, contend that the alleged contravention did not occur and there was no breach of contract. Consequently, your client has no legitimate cause of action and must cease immediately.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put ‘on hold’ for a period not less than 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

In reference to private parking firms, government officials have described “a system of misleading and confusing signage, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists”. Therefore, I was unsurprised to observe a substantial and exaggerated increase in the claimed amount. Accordingly, I have two questions, and in accordance with the PAP, I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £60, described as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, is net or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this for damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

----

Anything missing or needing a change? Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

 Very good.

And I have suggested those final 2 questions for a reason (they are now in the NEWBIES thread LBC stage section). Be interesting to see if any bulk litigator bothers to answer.

KeithP

Why do we now have a third thread about this University of Surrey parking event?

patient_dream

The problem with BWLegal is that they are robo claimers and clearly they just accept what the parking company says. 

This is clear in many cases and in particular a case on friday.
BWLegal were claiming some £500 and the case was dismissed by the court just on the signs alone

Had BWLegal looked further than the end of their robo claim nose, they would have known the claim would fail and advised their client accordingly. They did not, they failed in court, they failed their client. 
They paid a "rent by the hour" legal who got very lost ... no wonder
plus all their other costs

Professional legal companies do not act this way, they have their clients to look after .... it's dog eat dog in the parking industry

Coupon-mad

Please report your threads to be merged. We can't use the forum like this.

One case, one thread works best for you & us.

loulizbutt

KeithP said:

Why do we now have a third thread about this University of Surrey parking event?

Thank you for the comments. I thought I had deleted the secondary thread previously, so I'm surprised that came up. I also didn't realise that it was one thread for a single case as this was a different question and a different stage of the process. I'll make sure any further comments from me are linked to that original thread.

TBH - reading through some of the comments on many of the posts, there appears to be an assumption of knowledge. Many of those posting are seeking help because this is the first time they have encountered these issues.