In a pickle - Admitted I was the driver to IAS - BW legal email response help

Help___please

Hi 

After spending a few hours going through the various threads and step by step guide on the newbie thread I have come to a bit of a sticking point and am after some reassurance to what to do next.

My context is I have recently received a LBC (I think?!) from BW Legal (attached) after not paying a PCN (attached) from 21st July 2024. In my naivety (pre visiting MSE forum!) I followed the complaints and appeals process detailed on the back of the PCN, which directed me to the IAS. I believed it to be a straightforward mistake on their ANPR camera in the car park, which only saw me enter and leave once (surprise surprise) on the named day, where in fact we left the car park to go back to our campsite and then returned later that day - paying on both occasions and leaving within the allocated times. Unfortunately, through their portal I confirmed I was the registered keeper and driver at the time with PCN was issued (big mistake I now realise) and gave my appeal (attached) which was quickly dismissed.

Since receiving the BW legal letter, I turned to the forum for advice and came across the newbie thread. I have since complained to the land owner and MP - but have had no response. My confusion comes from that I believe at this stage that I should now use one of the template email response to BW legal. However, the ones I have read appear to use the fact that they cannot prove I was driving as the point to use why they can’t pursue me.

“I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so..etc”

However, as previously pointed out I have already admitted that I was the driver to the IAS.

Would appreciate any guidance on what my email to BW legal should look like considering the inability to use the usual line about driver identity?

 

I’m pretty !!!!!! off about it all as we genuinely paid both times and it is the fault of their camera, not me - which is why I’m so begrudged to pay it, but due to the stress it’s causing me, my wife is starting to say just pay it! 

Help please!

Grizebeck

Your over thinking this.

KoalaMSEF

It is not a LBC. You will receive another letter from bw legal, possibly with the title of Final Demand on the day of the deadline on this letter. After the final demand, you may receive a letter of claim from bw legal, when you need to respond. The Newbie threats have had very clear instruction.

Don't think too much about it. Yes, it is unfair, yes, it is unjust, yes, it is a scam. Unfortunately this is what we have to deal with with this unregulated industry in this country at the moment. IAS won't make any difference. They are a kangaroo court. They have the same template regardless of whether it is a residential incident or in a commercial carpark. We had exactly the same wording for a completely different situations. It's a scam and unfortunately, we will need to fight it when it comes. You are not alone :-)

Coupon-mad

Admitting the driver is fine. It was a double dip situation so there was no breach! I'd admit to being the driver in a double dip case.

Please don't use a template.  You should be ranting that this was a double dip case!

Please show the IAS decision first. 

Help___please

Coupon-mad said:

Admitting the driver is fine. It was a double dip situation so there was no breach! I'd admit to being the driver in a double dip case.

Please don't use a template.  You should be ranting that this was a double dip case!

Please show the IAS decision first.  I am collecting them for a submission to the Government and need more, this week.

Thanks, that’s provided a bit of relief. So i should be ranting to BW legal at this stage? 

Are there any key lines/phrases to use in the case of double dips when I rant? 

IAS decision below. Let me know if you would like anything else. 

Coupon-mad

IAS decision below. Let me know if you would like anything else. 

Are there any key lines/phrases to use in the case of double dips when I rant? 

Quote the Code of Practice re double dips.

That IAS decision is a complete template.  They may as well get a bot to do them!

Nellymoser

I can see this is an obvious case of the common 'double dipping' scenario. Failure of the PPC appeals dept and IAS to recognise this proves both are either completely incompetent at assessing appeals or are attempting to extort money from you.

Read what their own Code of Practice 7.3 Note 1 says about 'double dipping'

https://www.theipc.info/publications

Help___please

Thank you @Coupon-mad and @Nellymoser. 

So who should I be responding to now about the failure to recognise it as a double dips as outlined in the code of practice- BW legal? 

Coupon-mad

Yes.       

Help___please

Prefect, thanks all so far. Email ready to go to BW legal.

Putting it up here selfishly to hopefully get a glance over, but at the same time give someone else the info for a similar case. The more I read into it and research the more it boils my blood how they prey on the masses!

Dear Sir or Madam,

Your Ref. xxxxxx

PCN Ref: xxxxxxx
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: xxxxxxxx Cornwall xxxxxxx Security Services 

I refer to your letter of claim.

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

I vehemently dispute the claim made by xxxxxxx, this is an obvious case of the common 'double dipping' scenario. In addition to this a failure of the PPC appeals dept and IAS to recognise this proves both are either completely incompetent at assessing appeals or are attempting to extort money (refer again to the above point from the Government). 

On the day in question (21 July 2024) my family visited Lusty Glaze beach with our 2 year old son and friends, paying for 3 hours parking between 11:01 -14:01. We left the beach with our friends and returned to the cars sometime between 13:00 -14:01 to drive back to our campsite so our 2 year old could have his nap. As we enjoyed the beach so much we decided to return later that day, after collecting fish and chips in Newquay town centre. We entered Lusty Glaze car park for the second time that day, purchasing a further 2 hour session from 16:38-18:38. xxxxxxxx have confirmed that they have records of both these payments, which is why I find it utterly bizarre that despite these facts and their knowledge of the parking code of practice regarding its reference to 'double dipping' that they are still pursuing this case. Clearly they have not fully reviewed the fully ANPR images and therefore have themselves committed an offence under the data protection act by wrongfully acquiring my details from the DVLA. As you and they well know the practice of double dipping is very common and can be caused by adverse weather conditions or even more commonly tailgating  - very common in busy car parks (e.g. July in Cornwall!). 

The IPC code of practice clearly refers to double dipping (7.3 note 1), specifically stating the  'NOTE 1: The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15). The manual check might also reveal where “tailgating” – vehicles passing a camera close together – is a problem, suggesting relocation of the camera might be necessary'

In light of this and the photographic evidence supplied, I now request a copy of the two additional photographs, showing my car exiting the car park after the first visit, sometime between 13:00 and 14:01 on 21 July 2024 and likewise my car entering the car park shortly before 16:38 on 21 July 2024. If they are unable to provide this information then their surveillance equipment and/or your procedures for gathering and processing the data collected are 'not fit for purpose' as required under the Data Protection Act 2018.

I have contacted xxxxxx to complain and would suggest you advise them that they must also log this as a formal data breach complaint, due to their failure to bother to check all ANPR images as my car twice entered and exited the car park. This means that the DVLA data was obtained without reasonable cause because this was not a single parking event and clearly xxxxxxx have failed to do the necessary checks, before automatically harvesting DVLA data illegally. 

If they do choose to pursue this bogus claim, I will bring along my comprehensive evidence,  to prove otherwise and pursue a claim against them for their fraudulent acquisition of my personal data from the DVLA when no parking contravention occurred. I will be in a position to file this breach of the Data Protection Act and causing harassment and distress. 

I am aware of similar cases being raised in court; Vidal-Hall v Google [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) establishes that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages that damages for a breach of the DPA could include non pecuniary damage.

The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750 should they wish to continue this disgraceful pursuit in court.

Finally, I have two additional questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £60 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this 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 damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I trust that you can advise your client on the sensible course of action and drop this false claim. 

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

I would not even use the template response and ONLY reply telling them about the double dip scenario and your plan to counterclaim for damages for distress if they do not drop it.

The middle paragraph itself is too long and should be split here:

"Clearly they have not fully reviewed the fully ANPR images..."

Remove everything from the template.  Your case is different.