BW Legal - Armtrac Letter of Claim

Update: I sent off (to BW Legal) a rebuttal citing PaP 2017, requesting documents as suggested above and also I sent a SAR to Armtrac. Today I received a reply from BW Legal with a wad of documents covering all previous correspondence and photographs of the vehicle and the DVLA reply to fee paying enquiry form that was sent to Armtrac with the keeper details (me). The letter is lengthy (I will upload next week a scanned copy) and was a point by point reply to me request for information

The information I requested (with a summary or full reply in italics is as follows and my comments afterwards):

1. An explanation of cause of action.

"Our Client's cause of action is that you breached the Terms and Conditions of the contract which you entered into by parking your vehicle in the car park, by parking without displaying a correct and valid Permit"

I can respond to this quite robustly as the signage was poor (non-existent on the side of the car park where the vehicle was parked). The vehicle was covered by a Permit which was in the car (their argument is that it was displayed/visible)

2. Whether they (the client) are pursuing me as driver or keeper.

....lengthy response where they acknowledge they are pursuing me as keeper and how the client can hold me, keeper, liable - they presume that the driver of the vehicle had "either actual or ostensible authority to enter into a contract with Our Client in relation to parking on your behalf. This is supported by the case Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA 1453"

They then invite me to identify the driver and state "If you withhold this information, we reserve the right to draw the Court's attention (if County Court proceedings have been issued) to your conduct which may be perceived to be unreasonable in refusing to comply"

Given the poor signage I will argue the driver did not enter in to any contract.

3. whether they are relying on Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

"Client does not intend to rely on Schedule 4 of POFA 2012"

4. Detail of the claim (precise details of where parked, how long, how monies being claimed arose/calculated, details of contractual breach).

Lengthy response regurgitating that vehicle was parked without display of permit and was observed between a 14 minute window (precise times supplied) early in a morning last spring. That the £100 charge is regarded as a charge for contravening the Terms and Conditions, that it is irrelevant whether or not the charge as displayed bears any relation to the cost of parking "even where there are no costs involved". They then state that the client relies on Parkingeye vs Beavis where these charges serve a legitimate commercial interest and that £100 is a reasonable sum. They then have a very lengthy response of how the sign (posted in the links above) allows them to recover the extra £60 cost

So as I understand the Parkingeye vs Beavis citation does not apply as this is a non-commercial residential property - yes? So while £100 may be reasonable for a pay and display or commercial centre this surely cannot be justified for a residential space?

5. To identify the name and address of the Landowner (This is something I am very keen to do).

"we are under no obligations to supply this information"

So I have contacted the owner where the driver stayed (holiday let in the apartment blocked). Owner has replied but has no useful information except he bough the property in 2015 and the car parking space came with the apartment but nothing mentioned in the leasehold agreement. He does not know who holds the contract with Amtrak nor how long the contract has been in place. He does not know who the "landowner" is (if not the owner) and only contact details are a property management company that looks after the common spaces. After some investigation I believe the property management company that looks after the common spaces is subcontracted by another management company that has Directors living in the apartment block. I have sent correspondence to the Secretary of the company AND the registered address of the company solely to identify the landowner, identify whether they have a contract in place with Armtrac and how long the parking charge scheme has been in place. I have had no reply from any of my letters. I believe this company has the contract and are purposefully not replying to my request. I am beginning to think that Armtrac might not have a contract with the legitimate landowner but not sure how to get the proof.

6. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring their claim.

"....contract is legally privileged document which you have no right to inspect. However, should this matter progress to court, the contract will be adduced as evidence".

7. A copy of any alleged contract with he driver.

lengthy response saying the PCN is for breach of contract and refer to the sign that is in the above link and the fact that the driver parked there the driver entered into a unilateral contract with their client..... "the act of parking your vehicle is acceptance"

Again, acceptance is down to signage so poor signage means no contract entered?

8. Plan showing locations of signs and where vehicle was.

"Our Client is under no obligation to supply this"

The property has two separate car parks with two separate entrances - I don't think they even know which car park the vehicle was in.

9. Details of the signs displayed INCLUDING the entrance sign (=blue sign saying permit holders)

They refer to the client being a member of the IPC and that the signs comply with IPC recommendations and therefore are deemed reasonable

They have sent a lot of photos of my vehicle from just about every angle - Can't see a sign in any of the shots.

10. Information on the additions of the charge, what the additions represent and how they have been calculated.

"£100 remains unpaid for the Parking Charge Notice. Additionally, you are also liable for our £60 instructions fee as your file has been passed to us."

This is the first time that they acknowledge the £60 fee is for BW Legal. Is this justified?

After the answers above there are two paragraphs on how the amount is still due and that i contact them in 14 days to avoid further collections activity and that I should seek legal advice if not willing to arrange affordable repayment plan.

I am thinking of replying robustly - signage is poor/non-existant so no contract entered. They got my details as keeper from DVLA and I have a letter from DVLA stating that a contract to run a Parking Charge Scheme was supplied (but DVLA would not forward this to me) with the request so I will state in my response again that I am entitled to have a copy of the contract given this contract gives the right to Armtrac to pursue me for a parking charge. Without a copy I cannot assess my liability as keeper.

Do I need to identify the driver at this stage?

Am I correct in thinking the Beavis reference is irrelevant?

Anything else I should include in my response?

So I now know the owner has a leasehold agreement (the owner has not sent me a copy) that does not mention a parking place. The owner merely says that when the apartment was purchased the understanding was the parking space came with it. The owner only had an address of a property firm that it seems just looks after mowing the lawns, cleaning common spaces etc.. I have not contacted this firm yet. I think a second management company (who may have the freehold of the property and several Directors are listed as living at the apartments) may be the ones who have the contract with Armtrac but have not replied to my correspondence. I would like to know if this "Management company" (which has the same name as the apartment block, hence i have not named it) is the "Landowner" (even if they really are not authorised to proceed with a parking charge scheme) and if the contract is with them. There must be a contract as DVLA states in a letter to me that they supplied one when Armtrac requested my keeper details.

Thanks for all your help so far. Any thoughts on my response most welcome.