BW Legal / VCS 2012

[123gone]

Hi, - @empireday, I have the same issue as you, where

 

 

my offence was on 2/5/12 before PoFA 2012 act.

 

 

what was the outcome of your situation.

. are BWLegal still sending you letters demanding payment or have they proceeded for a CCJ?

 

Hi, - @ericsborther,

 

I have received my LETTER OF CLAIM requesting payment or they will proceed for a CCJ.

 

after reading this thread I will be now stating to them that I acknowledge their letter but not paying due the offence before PoFA 2012 and therefore not liable to pay as being the registered keeper.

 

shall I send my letter via email or post and how would I know they have received my letter??

 

Hi,

 

I have received 4 letters in total about an parking offence that took place on 2/5/12,

the offence was for "parked beyond the bay markings.

 

"I am surprised that I am receiving letters from BW Legal after all those year regarding the offence.

I have ignored all letter hoping they will go away but now just received the 4th letter, which is "Letter of Claim" from BW Legal requesting the balance to be paid or will proceed to a CCJ.

 

After reading similar thread on this forum I have found out that they cannot keep me liable because the offence took place before PoFA 2012 act,

 

which states that the driver is liable and not the registered keeper of vehicle.

 

Please can anyone advise me on how to proceed with this process?

 

ericsbrother?

[dx100uk]

random posts from other like threads moved to your new thread

new thread moved to the private parking forum

thread tidied

 

 

dx

[dx100uk]

send the letter by 2nd class post

get free proof of posting from the PO counter

that's all you have to do.

you don't need to prove they got the letter

only that you sent it.

 

 

I think if you read the letter from BW properly

you'll see it doesn't actually say WILL anywhere

but clever wording makes it read differently.

 

 

have you replied at all to date?

[123gone]

No I have not replied to them yet or to any of their letter to date. In the "Letter to Claim" they also mention the ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 in which the Supreme court held the parking charges. should I be worried?

[dx100uk]

no - beavis has no standing in this instance

and is very limited upon the actual inpact it has on any speculative invoice claim.

a letter of claim is NOT a letter before action.

 

 

read it properly

[123gone]

Yes I have just realised that after reading again. thanks. so since it not a Letter Before Claim, shall ignores this letter too?

[dx100uk]

no harm in sending the pre pofa 2012 letter you suggest

[123gone]

all of these letter are coming to my parent house because the car was registered there 4-5 years ago. within the letter shall i mention my new address? what wording shall i use in the letter?

[dx100uk]

do you still have the car?

dx

[123gone]

No, that car has been long gone, wouldn't be surprised if it been scrapped!

[dx100uk]

ok I was just worried your dvla details were wrong

as that IS a fine if the DVLA find that out as well as your licence address.

 

ok so what you put in your 1st post is perfect...

 

after reading this thread I will be now stating to them that I acknowledge their letter but not paying due the offence before PoFA 2012 and therefore not liable to pay as being the registered keeper.

 

you don't need anything more

[ericsbrother]

Use new address so they dont try and sneal in a court claim with the vain hope it wont be forwarded in time (dont mention it beoing your parents' home) and send them the "no keeper liability so tell your client to take the matter up with the driver at the time, who is now deceased".

 

That will make them look particularly stupid if they do fancy their luck trying to take it further.

 

 

You may think this flippant but they know they have no reason to bother you over this but they and their clients are greedy, immoral and have a smell of dishonesty about them.

[123gone]

what I find strange is that these letters have starting coming through to my parent house since I have moved into my own property in May and the first letter must have come through around July time.

I did update my driving license once I moved properties.

[123gone]

hello ericsbrother, thanks for replying. I have been following your previous threads on this matter. shall I go ahead and send a letter or ignore this one?

[ericsbrother]

not strange,

they would have got your keeper details at the time and they are obliged to write to that address.

Doesnt matter what you tell the DVLA,

the company cannot legally access your details again

and in any case it would only refer to the new vehicle keeper details.

 

 

The DVLA cannot hand out adresses of anyone on their files just because.

Their problem is that there is no keeper liability and never has been so they are flying a kite anyway.

 

 

Tell them in no uncertain terms and they are likely to go away as chasing you will cost them and gain nothing and they know it.

you might get another 2 we are asking our client for further instruction" which translates as we hope that our client is stupid enough to spend a fortune on this as we coin it in at everyone else's expense.

[123gone]

Ok

I will go ahead and write letter mentioning my new address and the following;

 

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX and its contents are noted.

Your alleged claim is prior to PoFA 2012 and as such only the driver is liable.

 

I also understand that I am not obliged to name that driver.

The amount of time that has elapsed means that I could not recall who was driving at the time therefore,

 

should you intend to instigate legal action, this will be fully defended.

 

Any future letters from you will be read but not acknowledged does the above sound right?

Edited November 2, 2016 by 123gone

[ericsbrother]

No, dont be polite, use the message I offer or you will invite them to keep going on at you as you appear to want them to write so you can read their tosh.

 

 

Also, you are telling a firm of lawyers how to do their job, they know this already and will use anything you say to trip you up

If I thought that writing something different was applicable I would have put that in my posting.

 

A very simple go away you bandits will do.

 

 

Think about it, who are they going to write to if the driver at the time is dead?

they cant write to you as that will give them data protection issues and can you imagine what the press would make of harassing a dead person?

 

They have no claim so you arent obliged to give this any real gravitas and certainly no information of any sort about the driver at the time..

[123gone]

I see what you mean.. I'll post the outcome to my letter. thanks.

[silverfox1961]

Hi

You are in safe hands with ericsbrother. BWL will say anything to get a pay day. Spouting Beavis when this doesn't apply in your case is typical of their behaviour. I wonder if a complaint to BWL would elicit some form of response?

As they will not be able to justify their actions, the complaint should be upheld but knowing them, they will just say 'Admin error', apologise and carry on chasing. It's about time more people complained to the Legal Ombudsman about the tactics used by these rogues!

[123gone]

- 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.

Edited November 3, 2016 by 123gone

[silverfox1961]

Ye gods. I bet you copy and pasted that which is why the formatting went wrong. bear with me

[123gone]

Sorry I am trying to break the above up in paragraphs but when I submit the reply...it appears like that??

[silverfox1961]

I have spaced it a little better but there is more to do. I haven't actually read it as yet but hen I have some more time, I will

[123gone]

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

[ericsbrother]

all very good but they will just ignore it as they will just claim they did exactly what their client told them to. The SRA will not sanction them, it takes them for ever to ban crooked solicitors who have stolen vast sums of clients money so exaggerating a consequence of something that we know isnt going to happen ( CCJ) will be very low on their list.

The SRA are aware of the behaviour of companies like Gladstones and BW already. Wont do any harm to copy them this letter as a complaint but dont expect anything.

All of civil law is based around money, if you have it the law will protect it and get you more of the same. We, the common people dont have any so are not in need of the protection of the law so that places these dodgy companies at an advantage.