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
    • MW2725
    • By MW2725 16th Mar 18, 5:36 PM
    • 11Posts
    • 2Thanks
    MW2725
    BW Legal for Napier Parking - 1st Correspondence
    • #1
    • 16th Mar 18, 5:36 PM
    BW Legal for Napier Parking - 1st Correspondence 16th Mar 18 at 5:36 PM
    Hi guys,

    I've been lurking on this forum for quite some time since receiving a PCN from Napier back in 2016. I had foolishly already decided to ignore the original notices and subsequent letters after which the claim was referred to a debt collector. I believe i did issue the debt collector with a template letter stating the debt was denied and to refer it back to Napier after which I didn't hear anything else.

    Now a over a year and half since the original notice, I have received a letter from BW legal. I have been reading the advice on the forum about LBCs and also read through a number of threads dealing with BW legal and have created a draft letter using the information available on here which has been very helpful!

    The thing is the letter I have had form them doesn't clearly mark itself as a LBC, so I'm unsure whether to treat it as such. It simply states they have been instructed by Napier Parking in relation to balance due and that they require payment within 16 days from the date of the letter.

    I have included my draft letter below:

    Dear Sirs,

    Re: Napier Parking PCN

    I am writing to acknowledge receipt of the above letter dated XXXXXX.

    It is unclear whether the correspondence issued to me is a letter before claim, but I will treat it as such.

    The Practice Direction requires us to exchange sufficient information to understand each other’s position. With that in mind your letter does not contain sufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client relies upon.

    The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter, in order for the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without the need to request further information.

    The letter should include

    1. A clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based.

    2. If financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.

    3. The letter should also – List the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely.

    Additionally, unless the defendant is known to be legally represented your letter should refer the defendant to the practice direction. In particular your letter should ensure it is clear that the court can impose sanctions for failure to comply with the practice direction.

    In order for me to respond in full, please also provide me with the following:

    1.The original parking charge notice

    2. The car parks terms and conditions as referenced in the previous letter

    3. The picture of the signs at the location detailing the car parks terms and conditions

    4. Evidence of the contravention occurring

    5. The operator’s contract which allows them to operate at the site, or confirmation they own the land in question.

    Please ensure that all documents are timed and dated correctly and can be proved to have been taken at the time of the alleged contravention (with particular reference to time-stamped photos).

    In order to comply with the Practice Direction, please also provide:

    1. A clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based.

    2. An explanation of how the amount due has been calculated and what it is based upon.

    3. A list of the essential documents on which you intend to rely.

    I would also like to know whether Napier are relying upon POFA 2012 for 'keeper liability'.

    Please respond with all the information requested and the necessary information required to comply with the Practice Direction.

    Without the information I have listed above, of which your client is obligated to provide, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and consider my position in relation to it, and it would be entirely premature and additionally a waste of costs and court time for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so I will request an immediate stay referencing paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction, and order that this information is provided.

    Yours Sincerely


    I wanted to ask is it worth sending this letter at this stage or sending a more basic letter denying the debt?

    Also not sure worth mentioning but I moved address since the original correspondence from Napier the Debt Collectors and am now back at my parents until next week. I have no idea how they got my parents address as I haven't owned the same car since summer last year and have only been here since January. Is it worth asking them how they managed this in my letter?

    Please let me know if im being a pain, I see you guys get this type of thing all of the time!

    Thanks,
    Mark
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Mar 18, 6:00 PM
    • 11,012 Posts
    • 10,981 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 16th Mar 18, 6:00 PM
    • #2
    • 16th Mar 18, 6:00 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Mar 18, 6:07 PM
    • 20,673 Posts
    • 32,579 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #3
    • 16th Mar 18, 6:07 PM
    • #3
    • 16th Mar 18, 6:07 PM
    Treat it as a LBC, then see how they respond to your request for more information.

    Have you asked for absolutely everything to which you are entitled?

    https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 16th Mar 18, 6:10 PM
    • 11,362 Posts
    • 11,889 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 16th Mar 18, 6:10 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Mar 18, 6:10 PM
    Nothing in your LBC response about the October 2017 Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims and how their LBC fails to meet those requirements. For example, the new PaP requires the claimant to give 30 days notice, not 16 days.

    There are some sample robust LBC responses linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.
    .
    • MW2725
    • By MW2725 16th Mar 18, 7:07 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MW2725
    • #5
    • 16th Mar 18, 7:07 PM
    • #5
    • 16th Mar 18, 7:07 PM
    Thanks everyone so far!

    I had failed to notice the current pre-action protocol at first and was focusing on the previous practice direction.

    I have amended the letter and simplified it a bit with, I will admit, a little bit of copying from the suggested letters. The main changes on the letter are below. I plan to post tomorrow morning. I have tried to keep it simple so far, rather than referencing a lot of specifics so that it is easier for me to understand haha.

    Your letter does not contain sufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client relies upon. I would hope that your client knows that as of 1st October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims.

    In line with both the previously applicable Practice Direction and the current Pre-Action Protocol I am requesting that your client provides the below information, as it is required to.

    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 vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
    5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
    6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1
    8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
    9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
    11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

    The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims effective from 1 October 2017 states that the claimant should allow the debtor 30 days to reply to any letter of claim, however your letter states you are allowing 16 days for a response. On this basis I find it hard to trust that BW Legal are acting in line with the Pre-Action protocol and would ask that they ensure moving forward, they do comply.


    Any more suggestions are welcome of course.

    Thanks again,
    Mark
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Mar 18, 7:29 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 16th Mar 18, 7:29 PM
    • #6
    • 16th Mar 18, 7:29 PM
    I'd remove this - you WANT them to slip up, so you can mention it in the defence:

    and would ask that they ensure moving forward, they do comply.
    • MW2725
    • By MW2725 10th Apr 18, 5:58 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MW2725
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 18, 5:58 PM
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 18, 5:58 PM
    So i sent my letter as posted above on the 23rd of March with a couple of amendments as suggested. Thanks for all the help. BW Legal have replied stating;

    "Please see responses to the points which you have raised below

    1. Our clients cause of action is that you breached the terms and conditions of the contract which you enter into by parking your vehicle in the car park, by failing to display a valid Pay & Display Ticket.

    2. Our client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    3. Our client does intend to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    4. The details of the claim are that your vehicle parking without displaying a valid PDT.

    5. The parking Charge Notice which you have been issued with is for a breach of contract. The only right which you have to enter the land in question are on the terms and conditions which apply. It is unnecessary to apply an analysis of offer, acceptance and considerations quite simply because the contract was formed on mutual promises. By parking your vehicle in the car park you have entered into a unilateral contract with out client. Acceptance does not have to be communicated, the act of parking your vehicle is acceptance.

    6. This is not a claim for trespass.

    7. Please be aware 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.

    8. Our client is under no obligation to supply this.

    9. As established members of the Independent Parking Committee, Our client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ('Code of Practice'). This code of practice gives recommendation in regards to the signage within the carpark. The signs within the car park comply with the recommendations in the code of practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.

    10. £xx.xx remains unpaid for the parking charge notice. Additionally, you are also liable for our £xx.xx instruction fee as your file has been passed to us.

    11. This will be issued in due course."

    The letter also attaches photos of the vehicle and asks that contact is made within 7 days of the letter to discuss repayment.

    Do you guys have any suggestions on what the next move should be?

    Thanks,
    Mark
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Apr 18, 6:16 PM
    • 11,362 Posts
    • 11,889 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 10th Apr 18, 6:16 PM
    • #8
    • 10th Apr 18, 6:16 PM
    The letter [...] asks that contact is made within 7 days of the letter to discuss repayment.
    Can you expand on this please?

    Do they say what will happen after that seven days?

    The point is that the PaP states that they should not start court proceedings for at least 30 days from supplying the information requested.
    .
    • MW2725
    • By MW2725 10th Apr 18, 7:34 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MW2725
    • #9
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:34 PM
    • #9
    • 10th Apr 18, 7:34 PM
    Doesn't say what will happen after 7 days. It's already been 7 days as of today anyway.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 10th Apr 18, 7:51 PM
    • 9,699 Posts
    • 12,755 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Doesn't say what will happen after 7 days. It's already been 7 days as of today anyway.
    Originally posted by MW2725
    BWLegal must Obey PaP, so the 7 days is just a figment
    of their imagination.

    YOU MUST BE GIVEN 30 DAYS

    Maybe you should point out that you require a professional
    reply in line with PaP before you can respond
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Apr 18, 1:31 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    9. As established members of the Independent Parking Committee, Our client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ('Code of Practice'). This code of practice gives recommendation in regards to the signage within the carpark. The signs within the car park comply with the recommendations in the code of practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.
    Originally posted by MW2725
    Standard letter template, nothing has changed:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73113280#post73113280

    Notice how they keep making the mistake of calling the IPC the (very old name) Independent Parking Committee, hahaha!
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 11th Apr 18, 11:14 AM
    • 4,158 Posts
    • 5,012 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    So HAVE they complied with POFA? If not, then explain how they havent.

    for 10 please ask them how they think POFA schedule 4 4.5 doesnt apply to their client, or to the small claims process where legal fees are not payab;le by consumers under rule CPR27.14(2)(g)
    • MW2725
    • By MW2725 12th Apr 18, 8:27 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MW2725
    I am writing my response now. I noticed that the photos they attached of the vehicle are time stamped with a different date to the date BW Legal are claiming the charge was issued. So I've mentioned that the details are unclear and asked them to confirm.

    I'm reading through POFA now. Thanks Nosferatu I will question that as well.

    Cheers,
    Mark
    • MW2725
    • By MW2725 12th Apr 18, 9:00 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MW2725
    So far i have this.

    I have reviewed the photos attached with your letter. Your letter states the date of the alleged contravention as being the xx.xx.xx, but the photos attached are date stamped the xx.xx.xx. As it is not clear, can you confirm when the alleged contravention took place?

    With reference to your reply regarding point 10, can you please explain on why you think POFA schedule 4 4.5 doesnt apply to your client, or to the small claims process where legal fees are not payable by consumers under rule CPR27.14(2)(g)?

    In line with POFA your client has failed to state that they didn't know the name and the address for service, of the driver. I am not going to be able to respond properly to the alleged contravention if BW Legal are also unable to reply in line with the current Pre Action Protocol.


    Struggling with the POFA points as I don't have the original letters anymore. Was quite a while ago and foolishly misplaced them.

    Sorry guys but any ideas?

    Cheers,
    Mark
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Apr 18, 9:37 PM
    • 4,158 Posts
    • 5,012 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Cpr 27.14 - check it so you know what you're covering.

    You don't have copies if the NtK but haven't asked for them?? Maybe you should do, it's fairly obvious really! !!!55357;!!!56842;
    • MW2725
    • By MW2725 12th Apr 18, 9:55 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MW2725
    It is obvious now you say it haha! Thanks
    • MW2725
    • By MW2725 14th May 18, 4:07 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MW2725
    Hi everyone,

    So another update, been a little quiet for a while.

    I sent BW Legal a letter last month to which I've just received a reply. They clarified the date of alleged contravention and enclosed copies of the original notice to keep. The copied document states the dated of issue as another different date so will pull them up on that. It also confirms there client relies on the POFA Schedule 4 act. The letter doesn't say much else beside apologising for issuing a template letter by accident in between our correspondence.

    A couple of days later I have now received an proper letter before claim with the reply form attached.

    I intend to complete the form and wondered if it was worth attaching the copies they've sent me questioning why the date of issue is different to the date they claimed the ticket was issued? I've been going back and forth with them for a little while and have already asked them a lot of questions, do I just repeat them on the reply form to slow them down (even if they've answered them already)?

    Thanks,
    Mark
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th May 18, 4:19 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I intend to complete the form
    We never complete the form.

    We send a letter or email, not start filling in forms or we'd get newbies filling in their income/expenditure like complete numpty sheep, sorry but people here actually would.

    You need to read LBC reply examples on other BW Legal threads, and as linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2.
    • MW2725
    • By MW2725 15th May 18, 5:26 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    MW2725
    Is making an offer without prejudice still advised in some instances? I've been writing back and forth with these guys for a couple of months and although their LBC doesn't contain some of the information that the PAP states it should, they have provided a lot of this information to me over the last few letters. I am still going to write asking that their letter complies with PAP but I feel I may just get a response stating they've already provided this information which will look worse on me.

    Cheers,
    Mark
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 15th May 18, 6:11 PM
    • 4,158 Posts
    • 5,012 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Only if you want to pay. You'd mark it WP save as to costs of course, so it can be shown after the claim has been decided.
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

957Posts Today

5,848Users online

Martin's Twitter