IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
BW Legal response please help!
Slds90
Posts: 8 Forumite
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
"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
0
Comments
-
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.0 -
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 it0 -
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 with0 -
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 (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
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.
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. :mad:0 -
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!0
-
Thought it was clear. I wrote your letter for you.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
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
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!0 -
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
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!0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Thought it was clear. I wrote your letter for you.
Sorry the quote didnt work I was responding in order,
Has this letter been used previously?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards