TPS & BW Legal 4 Year Old Unknown Ticket?

Afternoon,

SAR request has returned asking me to Prove my ID, They are requesting Driving licence and V5.

Obviously I am cautious as they clearly already know who I am, as they managed to send me a debt collectors letter (or at-least pass the info on) Should I just send my Driving Licence? or request they use the data they are already in possession off to confirm my identity?

Hello,

Me again, I have now received what appears to be a letter of Claim.

I received the SAR request back from TPS (Finally) and the information vague at best. It is just NTK's? Initial and a final, Its a PDF digital document? No mention of the PCN?

The alleged incident occurred regarding an over stay of time In a free parking area. There seems to be a few errors in the document.

1) There is no entrance/exit time?
2) There are no Pictures
3) The reference Number they have provided doesn't exist in their system? (tried searching it in their online database and it doesn't exist)
4) There is no proof of a ticket ever being issued, just an NTK?
4) There is no postage proof, and the letters they have provided appear to have been digital made?

Should I reply to BW legal pointing this out? Or just use the below I have stolen from another post.

"Thank you for your letter of 17th June 2019.

When your first started contacting me on your client's behalf, I asked them for details of the basis upon which money was being claimed, including all photographs taken of the vehicle at the relevant time plus photographs of the signage. Unfortunately your client has been unable to comply, Issuing me with no substantial evidence.

You have now sent a Letter of Claim. However, your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and, again, fails to provide the photographic evidence which I requested in 04/05/2019. It does not contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.

Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter clearly breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.
Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are (for how long the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)


I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information previously and your client has yet to provide it.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Kind Regards,

Removed as advised.

I located it on the forums in a BW legal post, wherein the poster was at the same stage as myself. I have no legal training and have been told many times above "read the newbies forum" the "odd letter" is from there

I am in receipt of "letter of claim",It contains no evidence or court paperwork just a generic BW legal rubbish, Wants to know my earnings and wants me to sign if I agree the debt Ect (basically junk) I am checking back as I assume they are passing this off as a fake LBC.

As mentioned above the SAR to TPS yielded great fruit. They have no parking ticket, only an NTK, No images No timescales nothing, not surprised by this as Im convinced this is a case off miss entered registration (Checked the dates and was in Greece when the offence took place, vehicle was in Stansted long stay car park)