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
    • Slds90
    • By Slds90 12th Jan 19, 4:32 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Slds90
    BW Legal response please help!
    • #1
    • 12th Jan 19, 4:32 PM
    BW Legal response please help! 12th Jan 19 at 4:32 PM
    Hi all, I've been reading up on the BWLegal thread and using some info from there I sent a letter to BWLegal asking for proof that I was the driver of the vehicle and such (like an idiot I typed it out and cannot find it for the life of me) but they have responded with a letter, containing photos of my car and copies of the letters sent to me last year in April with the amounts that need to be paid. The letter reads

    "We write in reference to the above matter and your most recent correspondence.
    Please find enclosed the evidence showing your vehicle in contravention of the terms and conditions of the site. This accompanied by the original notice issued to your (spelling mistake from them) stating the contravention and the reasons for it.
    Please note, 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 occured. As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest othwrsise, our Client, in the absence of the drivers details, reasonably presumes that you were the driver and we refer you to the recent court of appeal case of Combined Parking Solutions LTD Vs AJH Films LTD (2015) EWCA Civil 1453.
    In this case AJH Films had failed to provide the details of the driver of the 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 the charges incurred.
    The PCN which you have been issued with is for a breach of contract. The only right 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 consideration quite simply because the contract was formed on mutual promises. By parking. The vehicle in the car park you have entered into a unilateral contract with our client. Acceptance does not have to be communicated, the act of parking your vehicle is acceptance.

    We trust this clarifies our position and should you have any questions please contact us on 0113 487 0432
    Yours sincerely BW Legal. "

    Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks I'm advance all
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Jan 19, 5:05 PM
    • 12,438 Posts
    • 12,578 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 12th Jan 19, 5:05 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Jan 19, 5:05 PM
    Please note, our client does not intend to rely on The Protection of Freedoms Act ("POFA").

    No they are relying on CPS V AJH films, I think that they will struggle

    On appeal it was found that CPS v AJH Films is only applicable in an employee/employer situation. This was not such a situation.

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/motorist-wins-appeal-cps-vs-ajh-films.html

    They are wasting your time, and court time, please complain to your MP as it is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business.

    Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

    Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

    All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Jan 19, 5:11 PM
    • 21,895 Posts
    • 27,499 Thanks
    Redx
    • #3
    • 12th Jan 19, 5:11 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Jan 19, 5:11 PM
    perhaps send a SAR to the DPO at the PPC involved ? (who is the PPC ?)

    as for an LBC rebuttal, deny the alleged debt and if you were NOT the driver, say so in the rebuttal, also stating that they have failed POFA2012 and so as keeper you are not liable anyway

    do not write the above unless it is true, just deny the alleged debt is the minimum to put, only expand on it if you can do so, keep a copy for court, copy yourself into the email address bar, as well as B W LEGAL if emailing it
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Jan 19, 5:21 PM
    • 10,936 Posts
    • 14,495 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #4
    • 12th Jan 19, 5:21 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Jan 19, 5:21 PM
    As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest othwrsise, our Client, in the absence of the drivers details, reasonably presumes that you were the driver and we refer you to the recent court of appeal case of Combined Parking Solutions LTD Vs AJH Films LTD (2015) EWCA Civil 1453.
    In this case AJH Films had failed to provide the details of the driver of the 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 the charges incurred.


    If this continued rubbish by BWLegal is all they have, they might as well give up

    BWLegal has been told by the courts so many times that Combined Parking Solutions LTD Vs AJH Films LTD is not applicable

    BWLegal are yet again trying to waste the courts time and they will lose ...... who writes these ridiculous letters ????
    The mind boggles with such stupidity

    OP ..... just wait now to see what other jokes they come up with
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jan 19, 8:07 PM
    • 68,680 Posts
    • 80,935 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 12th Jan 19, 8:07 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Jan 19, 8:07 PM
    Dear BW Legal,

    I refer to your template letter. Very glad to see you admit your client has a hopeless case with no reliance on POFA. Your client's conduct in pursuing the keeper is clearly not just hopeful, but completely meritless and wholly unreasonable. Their conduct will be drawn to the attention of the presiding Judge when it comes to the matter of costs.

    I suggest you need to update your template because you are misleading the public by referring to irrelevant case of CPS v AJH Films which has no application whatsoever where a registered keeper is an individual. This has been established in dozens of defended cases across the country and indeed in an appeal case, Excel v Smith, where the claimant was admonished for improper citation of CPS v AJH Films specifically, which had misled the first county court Judge and led them into error in law.

    I can assure you that the Judge in this case will not be similarly allowed to fall into error.

    The rubbish in your letter is as disingenuous as the charge from your client.

    You and I both know that the expert parking law barrister and PATAS/POPLA Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, confirmed in his annual report in 2015 that there is no lawful presumption that a registered keeper is the driver, and no operator should be heard saying there is, or that a keeper has any obligation to name the driver.

    There can be no adverse inference drawn from my choice to defend this scam, as keeper. Of course I will not inflict the driver with this level of intimidation and harassment from you and your client. I will see you in court.

    yours faithfully,
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Slds90
    • By Slds90 12th Jan 19, 9:53 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Slds90
    • #6
    • 12th Jan 19, 9:53 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Jan 19, 9:53 PM
    Please note, our client does not intend to rely on The Protection of Freedoms Act ("POFA").

    No they are relying on CPS V AJH films, I think that they will struggle

    On appeal it was found that CPS v AJH Films is only applicable in an employee/employer situation. This was not such a situation.

    They are wasting your time, and court time, please complain to your MP as it is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business.

    Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

    Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

    All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    Thanks, I know that they just a bunch of time wasters, im just trying to gather enough so I can respond and end this, they're getting on my nerves with the emails and texts! It's maddening.
    • Slds90
    • By Slds90 12th Jan 19, 9:56 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Slds90
    • #7
    • 12th Jan 19, 9:56 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Jan 19, 9:56 PM
    Thanks for this, just so I'm clear, how would I go about denying the alleged debt, I just want to have as much clear as possible!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jan 19, 9:59 PM
    • 68,680 Posts
    • 80,935 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 12th Jan 19, 9:59 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Jan 19, 9:59 PM
    Thought it was clear. I wrote your letter for you.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Slds90
    • By Slds90 12th Jan 19, 10:05 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Slds90
    • #9
    • 12th Jan 19, 10:05 PM
    • #9
    • 12th Jan 19, 10:05 PM
    As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest othwrsise, our Client, in the absence of the drivers details, reasonably presumes that you were the driver and we refer you to the recent court of appeal case of Combined Parking Solutions LTD Vs AJH Films LTD (2015) EWCA Civil 1453.
    In this case AJH Films had failed to provide the details of the driver of the 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 the charges incurred.


    If this continued rubbish by BWLegal is all they have, they might as well give up

    BWLegal has been told by the courts so many times that Combined Parking Solutions LTD Vs AJH Films LTD is not applicable

    BWLegal are yet again trying to waste the courts time and they will lose ...... who writes these ridiculous letters ????
    The mind boggles with such stupidity

    OP ..... just wait now to see what other jokes they come up with
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    I know they're ridiculous, templates everywhere! I was quite surprised they even went through the effort of getting the images of my car! To be honest all I've done so far is wait and I'm not massively keen on a court date!
    • Slds90
    • By Slds90 12th Jan 19, 10:09 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Slds90
    As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest othwrsise, our Client, in the absence of the drivers details, reasonably presumes that you were the driver and we refer you to the recent court of appeal case of Combined Parking Solutions LTD Vs AJH Films LTD (2015) EWCA Civil 1453.
    In this case AJH Films had failed to provide the details of the driver of the 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 the charges incurred.


    If this continued rubbish by BWLegal is all they have, they might as well give up

    BWLegal has been told by the courts so many times that Combined Parking Solutions LTD Vs AJH Films LTD is not applicable

    BWLegal are yet again trying to waste the courts time and they will lose ...... who writes these ridiculous letters ????
    The mind boggles with such stupidity

    OP ..... just wait now to see what other jokes they come up with
    Originally posted by beamerguy

    SLDS90View public profileSend private messageFind more postsView all thanked postsAdd to contacts

    Thanks for this, just so I'm clear, how would I go about denying the alleged debt, I just want to have as much clear as possible!
    • Slds90
    • By Slds90 12th Jan 19, 10:24 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Slds90
    Thought it was clear. I wrote your letter for you.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Sorry the quote didnt work I was responding in order,

    Has this letter been used previously?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jan 19, 10:49 PM
    • 68,680 Posts
    • 80,935 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, I wrote it for you specially for your case.

    I often write similar ones and the points in it say why you are not liable.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Slds90
    • By Slds90 7th Feb 19, 1:03 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Slds90
    The reply
    Thanks for your advice on this, I went ahead and sent the letter, their reply is as frustrating as I'd have imagined, it reads

    "We write in response to your recent correspondence dated 15th January 2019

    Whilst we note your comments, we can confirm our clients position on the matter remains unchanged.

    It is important that you now contact us in order we can discuss an affordable payment arrangement "

    Any thoughts on this?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 7th Feb 19, 2:31 PM
    • 5,007 Posts
    • 6,117 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Write back
    State that you are unwilling to continue this dialogue of the deaf
    You give them 14 days to issue a court claim form, otherwise you will consider the matter closed
    • Slds90
    • By Slds90 9th Feb 19, 3:22 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Slds90
    Write back
    State that you are unwilling to continue this dialogue of the deaf
    You give them 14 days to issue a court claim form, otherwise you will consider the matter closed
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Thanks for this, I am getting frustrated with their clear stupidity but I am loathe to incite a court date, I have enough going on at the moment without a court date to add to the list. As a last resort I guess I would have to but I am really trying to get a workaround
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Feb 19, 3:29 PM
    • 68,680 Posts
    • 80,935 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    There is no workaround. My letter wasn't designed to stop them.

    It was designed to help you later in court (because you WILL get a claim this year) where at the hearing, you can argue at the end for costs 'on the indemnity basis' for unreasonable conduct.

    Look at sassii's recent thread where a person got awarded 1250 in punitive costs for a parking case. And sassii, earlier in 2018, got 2000 odd in their case.

    You could now waste more of their time by sending the PPC a SAR, which will show you all the photos & letters they are relying on. The NEWBIES thread tells you all this already.

    Please read it, even if you read it before, especially given you will need a defence soon enough.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 9th Feb 19, 3:43 PM
    • 10,936 Posts
    • 14,495 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Thanks for this, I am getting frustrated with their clear stupidity but I am loathe to incite a court date, I have enough going on at the moment without a court date to add to the list. As a last resort I guess I would have to but I am really trying to get a workaround
    Originally posted by Slds90
    We have to agree regarding their stupidity but you play the game.

    Do what nosferatu1001 says, it does not follow they will take you to court and if they do, your chances of winning is better than BWL.

    All their claims are mainly just a copy and paste, quoting cases that a judge will rubbish, adding on fake amounts, sending freshmen legals who appear to be clueless .... most of all they are up against judges who have seen it all before and dismisses the case costing BWL money, and an embarrassment in front of their clients

    So, call them out, see what is the next game of their charade they wish to play ..... this forum will help you make a mockery of it
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 17th Feb 19, 2:30 PM
    • 13,697 Posts
    • 14,973 Thanks
    KeithP
    I'd appreciate any comments...
    Originally posted by woosaa
    Woosaa, you won't get any comments on this thread.

    Trying to divert Slds90's thread in your direction is akin to butting in on a conversation with something entirely irrelevant.

    Trying to deal with two people's different issues in a single thread can only lead to confusion.

    Please delete your post from this thread and start a new thread where you will get all the help you need.

    Thanks for your understanding.
    .
    • woosaa
    • By woosaa 17th Feb 19, 2:54 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    woosaa
    Woosaa, you won't get any comments on this thread.

    Trying to divert Slds90's thread in your direction is akin to butting in on a conversation with something entirely irrelevant.

    Trying to deal with two people's different issues in a single thread can only lead to confusion.

    Please delete your post from this thread and start a new thread where you will get all the help you need.

    Thanks for your understanding.
    Originally posted by KeithP

    Apologies, now deleted! Forum newbie here....
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

90Posts Today

919Users online

Martin's Twitter