LOC from BW Legal - advice requested

Harvez63

Coupon-mad said:

I really hope that HMRC run with this series of VAT complaints 

Oh how I'd love this. Was always taught day 1 of business, do not mess with the VAT man/ or woman, they are the ones who put you in prison. Are these muppets operating on a level now they think they're above everything? I think when you scam for a living, your moral compass must just spin to a point it has no direction. 

jd576 said:

Hmm, BW Legal have now blocked all these email addresses: contact@bwlegal.co.uk,disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk and parking@bwlegal.co.uk

They really are dirtbags this crowd. I am NOT their customer. 

Any advice on how to serve a reply?

I had this with them. I cant help think of the people who dont find this forum and think thats how you have to deal with a 'legal scam firm'. 

Whilst here OP, incase I dont follow up on the thread, if you get so far as a court date set, I'd say from 2 weeks out continually check with the courts themselves every other day, that the hearing hasn't been discontinued. It's BWL last kick in the nuts to try and make you take a day off, and attend a court hearing that they discontinued but never told you. 

Best of luck! 

jd576

The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims notes in article 4.5 that 

A partially completed Reply Form should be taken by the creditor as an attempt by the debtor to engage with the matter. The creditor should attempt to contact the debtor to discuss the Reply Form and obtain any further information needed to understand the debtor’s position.

Surely this implies that the correct action would also be to include a copy of the reply form from the PAP along with the letter, checking boxes D and I (dispute the debt and need more information), as this then obliges the company to engage and is seen as a reciprocal "attempt to engage"?

I've seen advice to the contrary on this forum and given clause 4.5, I'm trying to understand why it's recommended not to complete the reply form? 

Coupon-mad

Because plenty of people would pick up the forms and assume they have to fill out the financial/income questions.   You don't need a form to tell the Claimant or their rep, that you are disputing the debt.  The email response recommended says exactly that.

jd576

nopcns said:

SAR@bwlegal.co.uk is a published email address for them

This one seems to have worked as I didn't receive a noreply. I did not, however, receive any automated acknowledgement but I made sure to copy myself.

jd576

I sent my reply to BW Legal's letter of claim to the email to the address shown in the previous post last Thursday the 21st.

The same day, I posted a physical copy of the reply with Royal Mail to the address listed on their letter of claim and got a Proof of Posting certificate from the post office, since I half expected the behaviour I'm about to describe:

Yesterday, in came a completely new type of email "no reply", 5 days after that last email was sent, claiming to be an automatic response when it most clearly is not, since they're now able to tie my email address (which they did not have previously) to their claim details, citing their PCN reference and other information they would not be able to cite had they not read the letter and linked the claim with the email address.

In this letter, they claim they're "sending a reminder" rather than responding to my letter, intimating that they have not received any communication from me, which by the tying of my details to my email address, is quite obviously false. 

Should I be doing anything further to ensure they have no grounds for claiming non-response to their letter of claim? This is clearly another attempt at intimidation, however their tactics seem to be to deny that I have responded to their letter of claim in the allotted time. Would this refusal to acknowledge a reply mean that they'd be able to assert that their "claim is issued and is not defended"?

Coupon-mad

Ignore that crap but save it for WS stage to show unreasonable conduct before/in litigation

jd576

I have now received a reply from BW Legal to my correspondence disputing their letter of claim. I'm reluctant to post an image of this, since BW Legal troll these forums and I'd prefer not to obviously link this thread to a specific case.

In their reply, they

Assert that the keeper was given an opportunity to pay a reduced charge (this is not correct, since that first PCN was never received, but of course, impossible to prove. What is evident is that the operator has a strong incentive not to send that first PCN since it results in a majored charge) and that because no payment was received, the matter was handed off to the debt collector and further costs were thus incurred. This appears to be a response to my assertion that the additional £60 they tacked onto the £100 principal debt is illegal.

The follow this up by explaining that the £60 represents the "nature and type of work undertaken by debt recovery agents" as it pertains to collection of the parking charge.

At no point do they reply to the question on VAT as it pertains to the debt recovery cost or supply the requested legal basis under which they are claiming this debt recovery cost beyond the assertion above.

They had previously claimed that these debt recovery costs were agreed to in the alleged contract with their client but failed to respond to the request to show where these amounts were clearly laid out in said “contract”.

They ignored the request made in terms of the PAP to supply a copy of the written agreement (PAP article 3.1(a)(iv)) that forms this "contract".

They then note that their client rejected the appeal and state that the balance thus is due and owing.

They were asked to supply photographic evidence of parking, which they were unable to do. The evidence they supplied was an almost completely black photo showing only a car license plate, impossible even to identify from the photo what make of car this was, where this car was located and even if it had been parked. They just whined that their client isn't responsible for the poor light and that the vehicle reg is clear. 

They declined to supply an agreement with the leaseholder giving them authority to manage the parking that forms part of that leaseholder's lease, claiming they have no obligation to do so and that their claim is legitimate. They do not identify who their client is. The leaseholder informs me that it is the landowner who contracted the parking management company and they have no dealings with the parking management company. 

They ignored the request to provide terminal registration logs showing an absence of a registration during the period in question.

They then assert that the "full balance", meaning the principal debt to which the "debt recovery cost" was added remains owing and due.

They insist that should I continue to dispute the matter, I must provide "full evidence in support of your claim".

They supplied, as supporting documents, copies of the appeal rejection and the two notices to keeper.

They did not acknowledge the request to put the matter on hold for 30 days while independent debt advice is being sought. 

I absolutely intend to defend this claim in court and I do have a defence in addition to the abusive double recovery they're trying. However, I can see no legal requirement on me at this stage to disclose my defence to BW Legal, despite their insistence that I do so. I've already made it clear that I dispute the claim and that furthermore, their addition of "debt recovery costs" to the principal debt they're claiming is illegal.

They're clearly fishing, since my reply supplied multiple possible avenues for contesting their claim. 

So, what is the correct reply at this point? Do I simply reply that I continue to dispute their claim and will defend it in court? Do I need to supply further evidence?

KeithP

Why do you feel the need to reply?

Wait patiently for a Claim Form to drop through your letterbox and when that happens tell us the Issue Date on it for further guidance.

jd576

KeithP said:

Why do you feel the need to reply?

Wait patiently for a Claim Form to drop through your letterbox and when that happens tell us the Issue Date on it for further guidance.

Right, so PAP obligation to respond within the allotted time now discharged and so no further need for an endless back-and-forth with them asserting their claim and me denying their claim?

Given that they respect the PAP and the request to put on hold for 30 days, I should not expect a Claim Form to drop through the letterbox before at least 30 days from the date of my reply to their letter of claim, right?

Nellymoser

Since you didn't receive original PCN you may wish to support this.

So many people don't receive 1st and/or 2nd PCN but the £170 payment due letter often manages to drop through letter boxes. PPCs always claim discounted/full rate PCNs, court claim/discontinuation letters were sent as dated though they offer no evidence to prove this.

Since they CHOOSE NOT to provide evidence of their posting we must continue to press gov to ensure they do and see it included in the new Parking CoP. Please sign/share @jmccabe petition closes 22nd june 2024.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652355
Require communications from Private Parking companies to be traceable/trackable

 Thank you. Good luck hope you win.