Jump to content

123gone

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About 123gone

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. if this does go to court I intend to defend myself, wouldn't be getting a lawyer. I may reply but delete the Elliott v Loake paragraph.
  2. I'm thinking of replying with the following: - I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 16/11/2016, reference number VCS/***** and its contents are noted. Can you STOP sending me letters to my previous known address because I have clearly stated my new correspondence address on my previous letter and this one. The payment is denied due to the fact that the alleged claim by your client is prior to Protection of Freedom Act 2012 was enacted and therefore only the driver is liable NOT the registered keeper. Your client does not intend to rely upon the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 shows that they don’t comply with the Act and therefore cannot pursue the registered keeper by presuming that I was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the event. The case of Elliott v Loake (1982) refers to a criminal case where the driver crashed their car and drove off. The Keeper denied being out that night despite forensic evidence left at the site which matched his car & other witnesses. This criminal case has no bearing in the civil courts or relation to my case. Is it worth replying with above AND does it require editing??
  3. BW Legal still sent the letter to my parents address even though I clearly stated my new address on my previous letter to them but they chose to ignore it!!
  4. Ok. thanks silverfox @ericsbrother - what your view on the reply I have received from BW Legal??
  5. I think I should saying the Elliott v Loake does not apply to my case and was a criminal case just to get them to do more work.. Shall I raise a formal complaint simultaneously with both BW Legal, Ombudsman & SRA at the same time?? what complaint shall I raise t with BW Legal..on the grounds of harassment??
  6. Hello people I did reply to BW Legal with the following: - "I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 26/10/2016, reference number VCS/***** and its contents are noted. The payment is denied due to the fact that the alleged claim by your client is prior to Protection of Freedom Act 2012 was enacted and therefore only the driver is liable NOT the registered keeper. " AND their response was the following: - "We confirm that our client does not rely on upon The protection of freedom act 2012. we note from your correspondence that you were not the driver at the time of the PCN. As details of the driver have not been forthcoming to suggest otherwise, our clientt, in the absence of the drivers details, reasonably presumes you were the driver and we refer you to the case Elliott v Loake (1982)" what do you make of the response and how shall I respond to this??
  7. You mean that long complaints letter....yeah.
  8. Yeah I know what you mean, I have been ignoring it to this point and its time I communicate with them via the letter and also mention my new address and not parent.
  9. Hmmm to be honest I don't understand all of it... good point.
  10. much appreciated advice Silverfox, I will take some time to think about how to proceed..
  11. Thanks Silverfox. But its no use sending according to Ericsbrother as he has mention above.
  12. Sound like this letter will ease them off me because it will show them that I know the law and what steps to take to tackle their bull**** demanding payments & i'm ready to defend myself..
  13. Please can you upload it spaced out for the forum when you get time and also provide me a feedback on it too. Thanks Silverfox
  14. Sorry I am trying to break the above up in paragraphs but when I submit the reply...it appears like that??
  15. - I have got help from another person who suggested to reply with the following reply. - The generic reply is exactly what they have mentioned on the 4th letter I have received. - Do you think the below reply is too long OR sufficient?? Dear BW Legal, Complaints Please send me a copy of your complaints procedure. I wish to raise the following complaints, which I believe are failures to abide by the codes of conduct of the Credit Services Association (CSA), Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) and Financial Conduct Association (FCA), all of which you are members of or regulated by. 1) In your letter you state. "the balance due includes [...] our clients initial legal costs of £54.00 which are detailed in the car park terms and condition." I do not believe this is true. Please therefore provide an explanation as to why you stated charges of £54 are detailed in the car park terms and conditions, and a full copy of those terms and conditions. Providing false information is against the Credit Services Association code of practice. 1.y. communicate with customers fairly and transparently, and not intentionally mislead them 1.aa. treat customers fairly and not subject customers (or their authorised representatives) to aggressive practices, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether lawful or not 10.k only impose such costs and interest on customers as it is lawfully entitled Additionally, the Solicitors code of practice clearly forbids adding a charge which is not legally recoverable: IB(11.8) demanding anything for yourself or on behalf of your client, that is not legally recoverable, such as when you are instructed to collect a simple debt, demanding from the debtor the cost of the letter of claim since it cannot be said at that stage that such a cost is legally recoverable. BW Legal will know that it has been held countless times that when instructed to collect a simple debt, demanding from the debtor the debt recovery costs is taking unfair advantage since it cannot be said at that stage that such a cost is legally recoverable; particularly since those costs have not been substantiated at all. This is therefore taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee. 2) Your letter also makes a number of other false and misleading claims: (1)“You should also note that if your claim has already been processed through an Independent Appeal Service (IAS) and an IAS has dismissed your appeal, then it is likely that a County Court will come to a similar conclusion and your defence will be unsuccessful.” (2a) “If our client successfully obtains a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against you (which is likely)... (2b) "Should we successfully obtain a County Court Judgment ("CCJ") this may have a detrimental effect on your future credit-worthiness and employability " (2c) "In the event County Court proceedings are issued you may be liable for Court fees, further solicitors' costs and statutory interest . Should we successfully obtain a County Court Judgment ("CCJ") this may have a detrimental effect on your future creditworthiness and employability." (2d) "In the event County Court proceedings are issued you will be liable for Court fees, further solicitors' costs and statutory interest . Should we successfully obtain a County Court Judgment ("CCJ") this may have a detrimental effect on your future creditworthiness and employability." (3) "We wish to bring your attention to the case of ParkingEye 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 yo will have should the matter got to Court and will be relied upon, by our client, in any County Court proceedings" Regarding statement (1) BW Legal know that the Independent Appeal Service (IAS) is a form of non-regulated and non-binding private arbitration service which is provided by a private entity who regularly brings claims for private parking companies (including BW Legal’s client) and whose decisions are therefore not independent nor impartial. BW Legal will also know that the IAS decisions will have no impact whatsoever on any County Court proceedings. BW Legal will also know that countless decisions reached by the IAS are not correct, found contrary to existing law and based on flawed assumptions. BW Legal’s assertion that it “is likely” that a County Court judge would come to a similar conclusion to the IAS is unfounded, unsubstantiated and plainly wrong, and it is made to coerce the addressee of BW Legal’s letter into paying their demand. This is therefore clearly taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee. Regarding statement (2a) it is absolutely irresponsible, as well as unfounded and unsubstantiated, for BW Legal to assert that this is a likely scenario, and this assertion is again made to coerce the addressee of BW Legal’s letter into paying their demand. This is therefore again clearly taking unfair advantage against an unrepresented addressee. Regarding statement (2b) This is simply not true. You will be well aware that provided a judgment is settled within the allowed timescales, the CCJ will not appear on any record. This is therefore a deliberate attempt to mislead me Regarding statement (2c) This is simply not true. You will be well aware that I will only be liable for these charges if your client wins the claim. You will also be well aware that provided a judgment is settled within the allowed timescales, the CCJ will not appear on any record. This is therefore a deliberate attempt to mislead me Regarding statement (2c) This is simply not true. You will be well aware that I will only be liable for these charges if your client wins the claim. You will also be well aware that provided a judgment is settled within the allowed timescales, the CCJ will not appear on any record. This is therefore a deliberate attempt to mislead me Regarding statement (3) (a) Social media reports show that since the Supreme Court judgment the majority of properly contested hearings are won by motorists. This may be because parking companies have been encouraged to file specious claims. (b) BW Legal have no idea what my ‘main defence’ is in this case © The Beavis case was concerned only with the level of parking charges, and ruled that a charge of £85 was not a penalty even though the parking company had suffered no loss. The level of parking charges was never a major reason why parking claims were dismissed in the courts and is essentially a red herring. POPLAs statistics show that the main reason appeals are upheld are signage and ticket issues. In any case, the Beavis case is not a silver bullet and BW Legal have not shown that in the particular circumstances of this case, Beavis is more favorable to themselves than the motorist. Beavis sets certain signage obligations on the operator and as these were not met, the charge reverts to a penalty. BW Legal have not shown these obligations were met. There is therefore no basis for this statement and BW Legal have provided no evidence that this is true. This is a bullying attempt to discourage motorists from defending claims. Statements (1), (2) and (3) all clearly take unfair advantage of the recipients lack of legal knowledge where they have not instructed a lawyer, by stating untruths and making unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims, and are all bullying attempts to discourage motorists from defending claims.. These are all violations of the CSA code of practice 1.y. communicate with customers fairly and transparently, and not intentionally mislead them 1.aa. treat customers fairly and not subject customers (or their authorised representatives) to aggressive practices, or conduct which is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether lawful or not 10.c not mislead customers as to the consequences or inevitability of consequences arising from any legal or bankruptcy action Those assertions and statements are also clearly contrary to the SRA’s Code of Conduct 2011, Chapter 11: Relations with third parties, and particularly are covered under Indicative Behaviours IB(11.7) and IB(11.8). Next Actions As per the CSA code of practice I require you to cease collection activities while this complaint is investigated. If your explanation is not sufficient I will escalate to the CSA/SRA/FCA as appropriate. As per the CSA code of practice I require all communications to be by letter post and not by phone or email. The Debt Is Denied In order for me to fully provide details why the debt is denied I require the following information, which I view as reasonable under the CSA code of practice, and also the information requirements for pre-action protocol. 1.to. comply with all reasonable requests for information made by customers or their representatives, regulators, clients and creditors, whether statutory or not, and upon payment of the statutory fee if applicable: a) A copy of the parking charge notice(s) b) A copy of the signage, if your client is claiming this creates a contract c) A copy of the signage map, if your client is claiming a contract is created by performance d) Whether your client considers they are acting as agent or principal e) The name of the land owner, if not your client f) Whether your client considers the charge is for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge g) Whether your client is claiming keeper liability exists Following receipt of this information I will provide my reasons for disputing the debt within 14 days. As per the CSA code of conduct I require you to cease collection activities until the dispute is resolved. 3.j. cease recovery activity whilst investigating a valid dispute Alternative Debt Resolution I am open to using alternative debt resolution. I suggest the Consumer Ombudsman as an appropriate body. The IAS has been well-documented to be a kangaroo court and would not be appropriate.
×
×
  • Create New...