Letter of Claim Recieved- BW Legal

At the time I emailed an appeal (naively)- I wasn't driving and I wasn't the registered keeper.

Your client must now be informed by BW Legal that it cannot succeed in its planned claim against me.

I refer you and your client to the following case law - and in case you have skim-read up to this point, I suggest you/your client re-read what I have just explained above, so there can be no doubt that you have the wrong Defendant in your sights and need to take your hand off the trigger of your scatter-gun:

1. Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch): in which the court reiterated that the aim of the pre-action requirements was to enable an early exchange of information so that a potential claim could be fully investigated and, if possible, resolved without the need for costly litigation. Not only did the successful Claimant not recover its costs, it was ordered to pay the Defendant's. This case clearly demonstrates that litigation should be a last resort.

2. Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20); Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872: in which the court made a punitive costs order against the Claimant because it had not complied with the Practice Direction.

Your attention is drawn to the following paragraphs of the judgment:

Paragraph 11: ''It is abundantly clear to me that [...] this is not a series of allegations that had been properly or thoroughly investigated until [...].'' {after proceedings had been issued}.

Paragraph 14: ''...the object of the protocol is [...] to get people to put their cards on the table and to honestly and rationally discuss matters. To that end meetings are provided for, and there is a requirement [...] which prescribes that there should be a rational and sensible response; the protocol provides the framework for a sensible discussion, or the chance for a sensible discussion so that the option is available to a party to avoid the need for litigation.''

3. Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855:

This case confirmed that the purpose of the pre-action obligations imposed by the Practice Direction were so that parties could make a real attempt to resolve matters at an early stage. In the case, the Defendant was awarded costs arising from the Claimant's failure to comply with the Practice Direction, and your attention is drawn to paragraph 46 of the judgment, in which the punitive costs order was justified by the ''exchange of information taking place, not in the lower-cost atmosphere of pre-action protocol procedure, but in the higher-cost atmosphere of court proceedings.''

Plus I cannot afford the risk of a CCJ as im about to get a mortgage.