Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • yorkshell
    • By yorkshell 6th Feb 18, 9:53 AM
    • 18Posts
    • 13Thanks
    yorkshell
    Letter of claim from BW Legal
    • #1
    • 6th Feb 18, 9:53 AM
    Letter of claim from BW Legal 6th Feb 18 at 9:53 AM
    I have received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal, saying they have been instructed to commence legal action in the form of issuing a claim against me in the County Court. I have received previous correspondence from DWP and ignored them. I have ready all the newbie threads and lots of other posts. The letter from them appears to have all the information on. I am wanting to send a response in my defence but wanted someone to look at the letter I have received from them to see if there is anything missing. Would anyone be able to do that? I am that scared about what to do, I feel the only option is to pay offered to pay a certain amount, but I can't really afford it. Help
Page 2
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 6th Feb 18, 3:27 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,295 Thanks
    pappa golf
    get your link , change http to hxxp ,and copy/paste it at the bottom of your txt , do not try to insert link using link above
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Feb 18, 3:28 PM
    • 6,601 Posts
    • 5,775 Thanks
    KeithP
    Try this way:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=73527635&postcount=9

    Sometimes imagination is needed.
    .
    • yorkshell
    • By yorkshell 6th Feb 18, 3:29 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    yorkshell
    Thanks, but as I'm trying to link from Dropbox and has www in it, it won't allow me to post.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Feb 18, 3:31 PM
    • 6,601 Posts
    • 5,775 Thanks
    KeithP
    Thanks, but as I'm trying to link from Dropbox and has www in it, it won't allow me to post.
    Originally posted by yorkshell
    change www to xxx then. Imagination.
    .
    • yorkshell
    • By yorkshell 6th Feb 18, 4:35 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    yorkshell
    hxxps://xxx.dropbox.com/s/pw54m50pi23ifdf/Scan_20180206.png?dl=0

    hxxps://xxx.dropbox.com/s/x2xaxjo3t6udbt1/Scan_20180206%20%282%29.png?dl=0

    Thanks KeithP
    Last edited by yorkshell; 07-02-2018 at 11:40 AM.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 6th Feb 18, 4:39 PM
    • 2,989 Posts
    • 3,850 Thanks
    waamo
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/pw54m50pi23ifdf/Scan_20180206.png?dl=0
    This space for hire.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Feb 18, 11:28 PM
    • 56,112 Posts
    • 69,778 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It's disingenuous that they make it sound as if you must fill out an income/expenditure form, when in fact it is completely irrelevant for people who dispute the alleged 'debt'.

    I would add that somewhere, that they are misleading consumers by not qualifying that the income/expenditure form is only for use by hapless saps who 'admit the debt' (what is the matter with such people?) and add that you are 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.

    Watch it (post #2 from the Deep). Twist the knife a bit, quote some words from the debate.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 06-02-2018 at 11:31 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • yorkshell
    • By yorkshell 7th Feb 18, 1:33 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    yorkshell
    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.
    • yorkshell
    • By yorkshell 8th Feb 18, 12:09 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    yorkshell
    Just sent. I'll let you know what response I get.
    • yorkshell
    • By yorkshell 20th Feb 18, 11:19 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    yorkshell
    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.
    • The Slithy Tove
    • By The Slithy Tove 20th Feb 18, 11:29 AM
    • 3,279 Posts
    • 4,769 Thanks
    The Slithy Tove
    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.
    Originally posted by yorkshell
    Good to know they've killed their own case. There's plenty out there which completely debunks the Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd case, and renders it irrelevant for a case like yours.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th Feb 18, 11:33 AM
    • 17,259 Posts
    • 27,176 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    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").
    That could be a bit of a problem for them.

    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.
    What - no Elliott v Loake? Have they finally dropped that non-starter? Talking of a non-starter, CPS v AJH Films falls right into that category too - a case of an employer/employee relationship in the context of the employer being held liable for the actions of their employee when picking up a PCN.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 20th Feb 18, 11:33 AM
    • 9,027 Posts
    • 8,693 Thanks
    The Deep
    They will struggle in court, is there anyway OP can lodge a counter claim? How about CPR27.14 (2)(g) costs?


    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/motorist-wins-appeal-cps-vs-ajh-films.html
    Last edited by The Deep; 20-02-2018 at 11:38 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 20th Feb 18, 11:57 AM
    • 1,635 Posts
    • 2,192 Thanks
    Castle
    Good to know they've killed their own case. There's plenty out there which completely debunks the Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd case, and renders it irrelevant for a case like yours.
    Originally posted by The Slithy Tove
    Such as Launchbury v Morgans (1972), which is from an even higher court; the House of Lords:-
    http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1972/5.html
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 20th Feb 18, 1:39 PM
    • 2,228 Posts
    • 2,639 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Oh wow, BW are doing an amazing job at taking aim at their own feet

    I would respond back, and asking them whether they will uphold their first duty - to the court - and inform the court that this case revolved around an agent / principal relationship? Or will they yet again actively seek to mislead the court, by withholding key information about their cited case law, of which you have ample reports of in the public domain?
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 20th Feb 18, 3:33 PM
    • 9,027 Posts
    • 8,693 Thanks
    The Deep
    I wonder if a judge would award unreasonable behaviour costs.

    In my opinion, quoting this case, or Eliot v Loake, is misleading and an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the defendant. It is not something that an ethical Law Firm should attempt. It is certainly worth a complaint to the SRA.
    Last edited by The Deep; 20-02-2018 at 3:36 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 20th Feb 18, 3:42 PM
    • 1,105 Posts
    • 1,448 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    STOP PRESS


    photos just released of BWlegal xmas party 2017

    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • yorkshell
    • By yorkshell 19th Mar 18, 8:06 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    yorkshell
    I have now received the following response from BW Legal, along with photos of the vehicle, a close up and very pixelated image of the signage and also the location of the signage at the site in question, along with copies of the original notification that I have allegedly already received. The driver wasn't aware of any such signage and has therefore not entered into any contract. I have OCR'd their response so I can add on here:

    Further to the query you raised with us on 13 February 2018, Our Client has now provided us with the information you have requested and we have enclosed this for you.
    We trust this now concludes any outstanding queries you had raised with ourselves. It is important that you now contact us in order that we can discuss an affordable payment arrangement.
    Failure to contact us within 14 days may lead to the following:
    !!!8226; Further collections activity; or !!!8226; Further legal action
    What You Need To Do Now
    Call us on 0113 323 4485 and one of our helpful agents can either set up an affordable payment arrangement for you taking into account your financial circumstances or our helpful agents can settle any query you have.
    How To Pay
    We can accept payment by a variety of methods which are specified overleaf. Direct Debit or a recurring card payment are the most popular choices as you simply tell us the date you want to make payment each month and the payment will be taken automatically so you don't have to worry about it. This can help you avoid falling into arrears with your account.
    Manage Your Account Online
    You can manage your account online by visiting our website www.bwlegal.co.uk and clicking on the customer login link to set up your account online. Our customer portal provides you with the functionality to speak to us by webchat, complete your income and expenditure, make a payment or set up an affordable payment arrangement at your convenience.
    Yours sincerely

    BW Legal
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Mar 18, 8:51 PM
    • 56,112 Posts
    • 69,778 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Dear BW Legal,

    My letter was not a 'query'. Stop patronising me and acting like you are a customer service agent. You and your ilk are a serious threat to consumers in this country. Cease and desist - this is now unwarranted harassment and your client is causing significant distress to me and my family.

    It is important that you now stop contacting me pretending you are wanting to 'help' discuss an ''affordable payment arrangement'' for a debt that does not exist. How dare you demand that I complete details of my income and expenditure, for a fake charge from a notorious ex-clamper, propped up by you, a shameful robo-claim legal firm who were named and shamed in Parliament last month.

    Your letter gave away my complete lack of liability in these words:

    ''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.''

    Good luck with that old chestnut. What - no Elliott v Loake? Forget them both.

    Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd has no application in a case that does not involve employer/employee vicarious liability and has been debunked in dozens of Excel/VCS cases, as you well know. I refer you to Launchbury v Morgans (1972), a case heard in the House of Lords.

    This continued contact and demands for money from a person who is not liable in law, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the constant bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.

    I also suffer from a chronic pain condition and the stress and anxiety caused by all this is making my symptoms worse. A chronic condition likely to last more than 12 months means I have a protected characteristic as defined within the Equality Act 2010 (the EA), and you and your client are making it worse. Harassment of a person who meets the definition of disability under the EA is specifically illegal within the statute under section 26:

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

    This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.

    I repeat - you know I am not liable in law. Outwith the POFA, there is no 'keeper liability'.

    Stop writing misleading letters. Stop writing any letters. Your client has no cause of action against me and must take it up with the driver, and should have done so in a timely manner, establishing on the day who that party was, if they felt there was a parking charge due.

    Take formal note, and tell your clients: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. You and your client must now stop processing my data and delete it from your records after cancelling the meritless 'charge' you are chasing, to my huge distress.

    If your client proceeds to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum your client is unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a week-by-week basis, as evidence to support my position. The unwelcome and detrimental effect on my chronic pain condition can be shown by evidence from my GP, to have flared up as a result of your unreasonable and unwarranted demands, and I will have no hesitation in seeking the full amount of damages the Judge sees fit to award.

    I am aware of the following two cases in the past year:

    - on Friday 16th March, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his 500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.

    - in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded 900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant (same as your client's NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall (mirroring the conduct of BW Legal's robo-claim modus operandi) had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from 100 to 300 by adding spurious amounts.

    Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that 500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional 405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.

    I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you and your clients.

    yours faithfully,
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 22-03-2018 at 11:56 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • yorkshell
    • By yorkshell 19th Mar 18, 9:26 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    yorkshell
    Wow. Thank you so much for this. I will be sending this off to them immediately. The thing is that I also suffer from a chronic pain condition and the stress and anxiety caused by all this is making my symptoms worse.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,135Posts Today

7,242Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I've decided my weekend starts here while the sun's glow is still baskable. So I'm signing off. Have a great weeke? https://t.co/9FxNEpDs6p

  • No not correct. The big six do, but you can get fixed tariffs guaranteed not to rise and about 25% cheaper. Just tr? https://t.co/B2ft5OS3Ig

  • Baaaa! Scottish Power has bleated and followed the herd, today announcing it's putting up energy prices by 5.5%. R? https://t.co/vi3hBxo4Hn

  • Follow Martin