Excel/bw chasing my wifes carer

mowkid · 19 September 2016 at 12:59PM

On 8th June 2011 a lady who is a carer for my wife received a PCN from Excel. Following the prevailing advice at the time she sent a letter to Excel telling them that they needed to establish who was the driver
Evetually it went to Rossendale and in 2015 she received a notification intimating that they had handed the claim back to Excel.
On the 25 July this year it all started up again with a letter from bwlegal.
Foolishly perhaps I offered to help her as best I could with letter/emails etc as she has no access to a computer or experience of same.
She has received all the standard letters from bwlegal to which I have written replies for her using advice and tips from this forum. They have come up eith the usual stuff, claiming the £54 fee, Elliot V Loake and so on.
I have sent a complsint to the SRA using tips from this forum but no offical reply yet. She did 'phone them this morning to get a state of play and the said sometime tis week. At the same time she did slip in a question as to whether they had a number of complaints re bwlegal and they said no they hadn't. ( maybe that was a white lie to save confidentiality)
She is now in panic mode because she has received a letter headed LETTER OF CLAIM giving her until 29/9/2016 to pay up and caliming that they have no response from her to their letter of 25th July when in fact they refer to one of them in a letter dated 24th August. This latest letter contains a table of costs totalling£272.15 they claim she would be made to pay if the matter whent to County Court

This is the latest. Hope if got it on in useable form bieng a bit of a computer dummy.

Dear Madam
LETTER OF CLAIM
Our Client: Excel Parking Services Ltd Parking Charge Nonee (PCN): Camera
Account Number: ~ 1 Date of Contravention: 8June 2011
Vehicle Registration: 0 i Balance Due: £154.00
Contravention Description: Parked for longer than maximum period permitted.
Contravention Locatiou:~ @ J raaAnpr Charging Scbeme Std tU ~
Further to our letter dated 25 July 2016 where we requested that you either pay the Balance in full or provide your
detailed grounds for disputing the PCN, by 10 August 2016, we are yet to receive payment andlor a response to our
letter.
Please pay the Balance by 29 September 20 I6 to prevent legal action from being taken. For the avoidance of doubt
tbe Balance relates to the £100.00 parking charge and £54.00 for our client's initial legal fees, which were detailed
in the car park terms and conditions.
County Court Proceedings
As we have previously brought to your attention, in the event County Court proceedings are issued, we will be
seeking recovery of not only the Balance but our client's court fees, further solicitor's costs and statutory interest
which are estimated to be the following:
..
[Principal Debt + Initial Legal Costs £154.00
Estimated Interest £42.15
Estimated Court Fees £25.00
Estimated Solicitors Costs £50.00
EstimatedTotaJ £2'iLlS::
We also wish to bring to your attention the case of Parking Eye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in which the
Supreme Court held that parking charges serve a legitimate commercial interest and are neither extravagant nor
unconscionable. This case eliminates the main defence that you may have should the matter go to Court and this
case will be relied upon, by onr-olieat, in any County Court proceedings.
You should also note that if your claim has already been processed through an Independent Appeal Service ("!AS")
and an !AS has dismissed your appeal, then it is likely that a County Court will come to a similar conclusion and
your defence will be unsuccessful.
If our client successfully obtains a County Court Judgment ("CCJ") against you (which is likely), then a CCJ will
be recorded on your credit file for 6 years unless you satisfy the CCJ in full within a month of the CCJ being
entered. A CCJ on your credit file may .affectyour ability to obtain future credit and may affect your employability.
If you fail to comply with the CCJ order we reserve the right to take one of the following enforcement actions to
recover this debt:
• Warrant of Control: A County Court Bailiff visiting you at your home,
• Attachment of Earnings: Your employer may be ordered to deduct payments from your wages.
• Order to Attend Court For Questioning: You being ordered to attend Court to disclose your fmancial
circumstances.
In allowing you the opportunity to make representations and/or pay the Balance before proceedings being
issued, our Client has complied with the guidelines under the Independent Parking Committee Code of Practice
(lithe Code") and its obligations under the Civil Procedure Rules ("CPR"). All previous correspondence in this
matter will be brought to the attention of the Court should this point be raised.
What You Need To Do Now
To avoid proceedings being commenced and the above additional fees, costs and estimated interest being incurred,
__ ..._ we !equest you pay J:.heBalance by 29 September ~O16~
.-
We have attached to this letter (once again) our "How to make payment" document, which details the ways in
which you can pay the Balance. In the event we do not receive payment of the Balance by 29 September 2016, we
place you on notice that we will commence legal proceedings for the recovery of the Balance without further
notice.
If you are unable to pay the Balance immediately, please Call us today on 0113 323 4479 to discuss this matter
with one of our helpful team. Our team can set up an affordable payment arrangement for you that matches your
current financial circumstances.
Yours faithfully
#j iR-fj'CN{
BWLegal

mowkid · 19 September 2016 at 4:10PM

Following my post this morning I've pretty much scoured this forum to see if anyone else had received the same letter from bw. I can't find one so I'm now wondering if its a standard letter or not.
Ive knocked off a reply in an attempt to put them off for at least a bit longer.
Trouble is they keep introducing more frighteners. They have put in Beavis now..
Many people have viewed this thread, does anybody have a better suggestion?

Carthesis · 19 September 2016 at 4:44PM

The offence was pre-PoFA2012 I think?

I therefore think I'm right in saying that they will have to establish who the driver was, and if they can't establish this, they won't get anywhere. Keeper Liability is a PoFA-thing, and if they want to apply PoFA to an incident that pre-dates it, they'll have to prove that everything they sent out was PoFA-compliant, which it probably won't be.

Anyway, this isn't a Letter Before Claim. This is a Letter Before A Letter Before Claim. They're just trying it on some more. Beavis also applies only in very specific circumstances as far as my understanding goes - I believe it is that it has to be a car park offering free parking in a retail area, where the basis of the charge is that by parking there you're preventing another paying customer from being there, hence costing them money. They would also have to prove that, at the time, the signage was compliant with the standard in the Beavis case - i.e. the charge in big big letters. Given the date of the "offence", i'd be amazed if that was the case, as this was back in the Good Old Days when they could get away with murder.

The_Deep · 19 September 2016 at 5:25PM

IIMU that BWL are being investigated by the SRA for similar claims, of which there must be thousands.

The £54 is a try on, not allowed by law. Copy the letter to the SRA complaining that they are attempting to obtain monies to which they have no entitlement and that such conduct is likely to bring the profession into disrepute.

Also point out that Elliott v Loake was a criminal case and a conviction was obtained with the help of forensic evidence.

Read this

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5509488

also read Gan's letter to Miah here.

http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t98605.html

Fruitcake · 19 September 2016 at 5:45PM

There are far too many lies, and mistruths in that letter to list them all.

It was pre POFA 2012 so they cannot pursue the keeper, only the driver. If they don't know who that is, they are stuffed.

The IAS and IPC did not exist at the time of the alleged event.

As the Deep says, Elliot vs Loake was proven by forensic evidence which does not exist here.
They know they cannot claim the 54 quid legal costs in court, or interest on that amount.

Keep playing rebuttal ping-pong with them. Point out the above, and other charges you know they can't claim such as estimate solicitors' and court costs. The court would decide this, not BW.

Keep complaining to the SRA about them. They are trying to con you that this is a letter before claim by calling it a Letter of Claim. This is misrepresentation. Tell your wife's care not to panic and pay. Show her this thread and let her see that help is available.

beamerguy · 19 September 2016 at 6:02PM

mowkid .... This is firm of solicitors who have gone mad
The rubbish they spout is menacing and they lie.

Send a copy of that letter to the SRA bitterly complaining about their menacing fabrication designed only to collect money from you.

Advise BWLegal that you have issued a severe complaint to the SRA AND no further correspondence will continue until you receive a response from the SRA which you reserve the right to bring to the attention of the court

mowkid · 19 September 2016 at 6:05PM

Thanks folks. I feel a bit better now. I've just got a couple more ideas from your posts to put in the next letter to bw.
If and when the answer this week from SRA I will put it on here.

mowkid · 20 September 2016 at 11:45AM

I emailed that letter from bw to the SRA along with an email asking them to add it to the recent complaint. Queried why they are allowing their well respected profession to be taken over by bandits.

Fixtrace6 · 21 September 2016 at 10:12AM

I have received the same letter. There is a pattern - they send a generic template letter followed by a slightly more personalised cut and paste in a bigger envelope (and on better paper) followed by another inaccurate template letter followed by the cut and paste in the bigger envelope etc
I have replied pointing out some of their inaccuracies.

mowkid · 21 September 2016 at 10:37AM

Fixtrace6 wrote: »

I have received the same letter. There is a pattern - they send a generic template letter followed by a slightly more personalised cut and paste in a bigger envelope (and on better paper) followed by another inaccurate template letter followed by the cut and paste in the bigger envelope etc
I have replied pointing out some of their inaccuracies.

Thanks for your post Fixtrace. They are obviously incompetents because in this letter they say they haven't had a response to a letter of 25th July but in a previous letter they refered to our letter of 2nd August.
They may be incompetent but still worrying and dangerous.
Have you complained to the SRA. We sent a copy of this letter to back up the first complaint but haen't heard the SRA verdict yet although they did acknowledge reeipt.

mowkid · 21 September 2016 at 11:03AM

I'm very grateful for the advice and comfort I've got from reading the comments of contributors to this forum. Although the case is not mine I'm still trying to follow the old motto I learned in the RAF.
That is the six P's. Planning and Preparation Prevent P*** Poor Performance so I'm trying to get au-fait with as much procedure as I can.
I may be a bit thick but I'm struggling a bit with this Part 18. What is it Part 18 of? Anybody please.

Excel/bw chasing my wifes carer

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free