Letter of claim from BW Legal

Last draft before sending

Thank you for your letter of 30th January 2018.

When your client's debt collectors first started contacting me, 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. No such evidence has been provided.

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 early 2017. It does not even say what the cause of action is. Nor does it 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.
Your letter also states that an income/expenditure form requires completing. This is totally misleading, as it only relates to anyone who admits the debt.
I am fully aware that BW Legal were 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary debate only last Friday, where MPs unanimously clamoured to expose rogue parking firms and their 'cosy relationship' with firms like BW Legal making a mint from their clients' rogue ticketing and unfair fining. !!!8216;Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines and aggressive demands for payment have no place in the 21st century and companies like yourself are an absolute disgrace.!!!8217;
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 (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, 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)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

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 in early 2017, yet 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.

I have received a response from BW Legal. I have scanned and converted to OCR so I can add it on here. Let me have your thoughts:-

We write in reference to the above matter and your recent email.
Please be advised that we have raised a query with Our Client in order to obtain the photographic evidence of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and signage as requested. Upon receipt of these, we will provide you with them.
Please see below our response to the points which you raised in your correspondence:
1. The Cause of Action of this PCN is breach of contract as your vehicle was parked for longer than the permitted time.
2. Our Client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date of the contravention.
3. Our Client does not intend to rely on The Protection of Freedoms Act ("POFA"). Instructions were provided on the PCN on how to proceed if you were not the driver at the time the contravention occurred.
As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, Our Client, in the absence of the driver's details, reasonably presumes that you were the driver and we refer you the recent Court of Appeal case of Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453.
In this case, AJH Films had failed to provide details of the driver of vehicle on the day in question and as such it was concluded that as AJH Films had permitted the driver to use the vehicle, then they should be liable for charges incurred.
4. The details of the claim are that your vehicle was parked for longer than the permitted time. This is a breach of the terms and condition of the car park which you agreed to by parking your vehicle. These terms and conditions are clearly displayed on signage around the site.
5. The £100 charge is regarded as a charge for contravening the terms and conditions. The sum
payable following the issue of the PCN occurs on the happening of a specific event (i.e. a
material breach of the Terms and Conditions) and is therefore a core term of our client's
contract with you.
It is irrelevant whether or not the charge as displayed bears any relation to the event of
[stopping or parking] (even where there is no cost involved). Our Client relies on the leading
authority of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held
that PCN charges, like this charge, serve a legitimate commercial interest. The relevant Codes
of Practice, also give guidance that £100.00 is a reasonable sum to charge.
Furthermore, our legal fees of £60.00 are reasonable for a professional law firm dealing in
this type of legal work and payment of such fees was detailed in the terms and conditions
located within the Car Park.
6. Please be aware that the contract between Our Client and the landowner is a legally privileged
document which you have no right to inspect. However, should this matter progress to court,
the contract will be adduced as evidence.
We trust that this clarifies Our Clients position.
Please contact us within 7 days of the date of this letter in order to discuss repayment on 0113 323
4485.