NCP/BW PCN PAPLOC now claimform - New Gatwick Drop Off Zone - I thought I had paid for both visits? ***Claim Dismissed***

[MoaningCrusader]

I will take some time to read through all the threads that have come up on the BW snotty letter search. I think I will compose my own response using some of the advice and ideas from the search and this thread. I will post that before sending it.

 

I am willing to take this all the way, as I find the tactics of these companies just awful. How they prey on people's fear that the legal system is their enforcer, when in fact it is most probably our protector!

 

I will of course be donating to this site once this is over, as your help and support has been much needed.

 

 

[dx100uk]

Well don't play your cards upon how you might defend if it ever did get in court.

 

Dx

[FTMDave]

I don't want to come over as all pessimistic, but a PPC which might think it too much hassle to start a court claim for a single invoice might get all motivated by the thought of £££££ when there are four.  That's why I hoped the second two invoices were not NCP.  Anyway, cross that bridge ...  The first two are connected to one incident, so let's deal with that first with the snotty letter.

 

I suggest you open a new thread for the two hotel car park invoices as the circumstances were quite different.

 

How about this for a snotty letter which heavily hints their case is pants while not playing your cards too early -

 

 

Dear BW Legal,

 

Re: PCN no. XXXXX

 

cheers for your Letter of Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the thought you reckoned I'd actually take such tripe seriously and cough up!

 

Of course you've been too bone idle to do any due diligence.  Had you done so, you'd have seen the driver did nothing wrong.  It really is your clients' own fault if they continue to buy their machines second hand for £9.99 on eBay.

 

Your greedy clients scored a bad, bad own goal by including £60 Unicorn Food Tax.  Some homework for you - go and look up point 9 in the government's Code of Practice.

 

Your clients can either drop this foolishness now or get an absolute hammering in court.  Both are fine by me.  I would enjoy obtaining an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spending it all on a nice foreign holiday while laughing at your clients' expense.

 

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 

COPIED TO NATIONAL CAR PARKS LTD

 

 

However, there's no rush, hang on for a week or so and see what the other regulars think.

 

Can you confirm they have made up £60 Unicorn Food Tax and the LoC is for £160?

[MoaningCrusader]

Thanks FTMDave!

 

I'll hold off on sending any letter for now. 

 

The principal debt on the Letter of Claim is £160 (that's broken down in a statement as £100 principle balance + Total Debt Recovery Costs of £60), Estimated Interest of £6.70, Estimated Court Fees of £35, Estimated Solicitor's Costs of £50. This is all comes to an estimated total of £251.70.

 

I was thinking I may be in a pickle with 3 claims running. But they have all been issued well after 14days from the date of the contravention, so technically as the keeper of the vehicle I am not liable. Am I right? I will raise another thread for those asap.

 

Once again thanks for your assistance. It's all much appreciated.

 

MC

[FTMDave]

10 hours ago, MoaningCrusader said:

The principal debt on the Letter of Claim is £160 (that's broken down in a statement as £100 principle balance + Total Debt Recovery Costs of £60)

Excellent news.  The extra £60 was already not allowed in POFA 2012 but is now specifically ruled out in the government's new Code of Practice.  So a nice own goal from NCP.

 

10 hours ago, MoaningCrusader said:

I was thinking I may be in a pickle with 3 claims running.

It's not the end of the world by any means, just (a) if there are several tickets the PPC will likely consider litigation more than they would have otherwise and (b) a judge might think that at least some of the tickets were justified.

 

10 hours ago, MoaningCrusader said:

But they have all been issued well after 14days from the date of the contravention, so technically as the keeper of the vehicle I am not liable. Am I right?

Yes, you are right.  Another mess up from NCP which will help you immensely.

 

Apologies for my own maths.  I thought there were two earlier tickets and two later hotel car park tickets.  But I now realise there was only one earlier ticket.  So if I've got it right -

 

14/10     No payment taken     PCN issued

18/10     No payment taken     No PCN issued

20/10     You phone and try to sort things out with NCP

 

If this is right then there is further evidence that their technology was rubbish - on 18/10 not only did they not take the money but they didn't realise you were there and didn't issue a PCN!

[MoaningCrusader]

Hi Dx

 

I have spent my morning looking into everything in regards to this first BW Legal 'Letter of Claim'...

 

However I was hoping to spend a bit more time going through some of the other relevant threads that had come up on my initial search last week.

 

They now no longer appear to be on the site?

Have they been deleted?

 

I was hoping to see what standard case the BW Legal mob send in.

I assume they use a generic approach and wording to all court cases?

 

Here's my offering in regards to a snotty letter... Thoughts will be welcomed

 

COPIED TO NATIONAL CAR PARKS LTD

 

Dear BW Legal,

 

Re: PCN no XXXX

 

Thanks for your ‘Letter of Claim’ in regards to the above speculative invoice sent out without consideration to the codes of practice laid out by UK Law and your client’s own governing bodies.

 

You have clearly done little, to no research into the specifics surrounding the claim made against me, the registered keeper of the vehicle, in your letter. If you had done so, you would have discovered the driver did nothing wrong.

 

The greed of your clients has also placed them in a rather precarious legal position in regards to escalating costs. As supposedly professional solicitors, I would’ve thought you would have been familiar with the UK Government’s Code of Practice for your client, a private parking company, and advised your clients thus. Might I be so bold as to suggest a little homework for you all and refer you section 9 of the aforementioned Code of Practice.

 

I would suggest you contact your clients now and advise them to stop this course of action or be prepared for a costly experience in court. I will first be obtaining an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

 

I really can’t say I look forward to hearing from you again.

 

Regards,

 

FTMDave

 

I am a little concerned to follow this course of action, as would it not include me admitting I was the driver? Can I pursue this course and still maintain my 'Registered Keeper' status?

[dx100uk]

where are you admitting you were the driver in your snotty letter?

 

dx

 

[MoaningCrusader]

Hi Dx

 

My apologies, I was not referring to my 'snotty letter' in the above post to FTMDave. In fact my individual posts appear to have been merged?

 

That comment was directed at defending myself on the grounds of the ANPR & parking payment systems having failed to operate correctly. As per FTMDave's suggestion in a previous message quoted below.

 

"Apologies for my own maths.  I thought there were two earlier tickets and two later hotel car park tickets.  But I now realise there was only one earlier ticket.  So if I've got it right -

 

14/10     No payment taken     PCN issued

18/10     No payment taken     No PCN issued

20/10     You phone and try to sort things out with NCP

 

If this is right then there is further evidence that their technology was rubbish - on 18/10 not only did they not take the money but they didn't realise you were there and didn't issue a PCN!"

 

 

[dx100uk]

yes posts were merged and so were unnecessary quotes of previous posts whereby you also state whom you are replying too, just type, we know what we've said.

 

you are not defending anything at this stage, there is no court claim to defend, and anyway, even if you did defend it later , you most certainly will never be advised to file anything that even remotely points to you being the driver 

[MoaningCrusader]

My apologies for the quoting...

 

However as I was posting a number of different things I wanted to indicate who and what exactly they were directed at.

 

It was clearly necessary to do so as you yourself thought that I was referring to my snotty letter when i wasn't. I am trying to plan my defence with that particular question.

 

Thanks also for clarifying, but I am completely aware of where we are at right now with this all, and that I am not actually presenting a defence.

 

However, I am equally aware and anxious that I may well have to do so in the future.

 

My separate question in regards to using the phone call in my defence is that should I do so it, it involves me admitting I was the driver, does it not?

 

Because in the phone call recording I am technically discussing the the fact that I, not another person, was at the Gatwick drop off zone on the dates and times in question.

 

To be honest, I can't remember exactly what was said, so I guess we need to hope that they have not kept any recording of the conversation.

 

In regards, to the snotty letter i have composed, what are your thoughts?

 

And do you know what happened to the other threads that came up on the search 'BW + snotty + letter'?

 

Once again thanks for all your help so far.

[lookinforinfo]

To answer your question  about BW and snotty letter it depends on the parking company that us BW Legal.

 

On odd occasions the PCN is cancelled on receiving the snotty letter.

 

Other times the PCN is cancelled after the WS or the parking company doesn't turn up in Court , or they cancel at the last moment.

 

Other times they end up in Court and our members win most times.

 

Often when they lose it is because they did not do enough homework to be able to counteract the motoring solicitor and other times they lose [fortunately not often ] because  of what we call Judge lottery.

 

Although there are many people writing in to us asking for help the number of successes don't appear to match .

 

This is partly because so many cases don't actually end up in Court.

 

Sometimes because the parking companies do not take all or any of their cases to Court.

 

Others because only a percentage of those who don't pay get taken to Court since even if the crooks win, they still lose money on the day.

 

Were it not for Gladstones, BW Legal would be the worst bunch of solicitors who do work for the parking companies.

 

I do not know why they are used as often as they are.

 

Total incompetents living off  their TV image.

[FTMDave]

Things seem to have got a bit confused.

 

Why not simply send the snotty letter that is drafted?

[MoaningCrusader]

Yes they have.

 

To clarify... I am asking you all to read my snotty letter and give some feedback, before I send it.

 

If I don't hear any direct responses to it, I will assume that no-one has any problem with the contents of the letter I have drafted and I will post it to them recorded delivery.

 

FTMDave - I drafted my own version as I am not a fan of copy & paste approach to anything. I decided to go for a more acerbic approach as opposed out and out in your face piss take. As it's more me and I may have to stand by the words said in court.

 

Can you confirm I have covered what needs saying at this stage in the letter?

 

Many thanks

[Gick]

I think that the sentence  I will first be obtaining an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g). should actually be  I will first be seeking an unreasonable etc as actually obtaining is subject to the will of the Judge and tells the fleecer that you understand the procedure.

[FTMDave]

You include the points about the Unicorn Food Tax & the government's CoP on the issue, plus threats to make a hole in their wallet if they did do court.

 

However, the PPCs go to great pains to pretend they are some sort of official body with their deadlines, procedures and internal CoPs which is why we ridicule them in snotty letters to show they have been sussed as the charlatans they are and that any court action would cost them dearly.

 

However, it's up to you.

 

There are of course no guarantees whatever version of a letter is sent, but we've generally found over the years the snottier the better.  The more polite someone is, the more the fleecers think they can be pushed into paying.

 

Gick is right in the post above.

[MoaningCrusader]

Thank you Gick & FTMDave. All points have been taken on board.

 

I agree that the wording needs updated. I'll have another think.

 

Once again thanks. I do hope we don't have to go all the way. But I am digging in here and preparing for the worst, so I look forward to your help in building the best researched and strongest defence I can.

[FTMDave]

On 07/05/2022 at 08:48, MoaningCrusader said:

To be honest, I can't remember exactly what was said, so I guess we need to hope that they have not kept any recording of the conversation.

I doubt very much they have a copy but if by some freak they have I reckon it would help you.  You would have proof of trying to pay, their software being carp and your bending over backwards to contact them to try to pay.

 

If you want to be absolutely sure I suggest this.

   1.  Send the snotty letters in the next couple of days.  Get a free Certificate of Posting.

   2.  Wait a week and then SAR NCP.  Usual free CoP.  Stick in some ID like a Council Tax bill otherwise they will find an excuse to not reply.

 

NCP are not particularly litigious and they will know their software was useless but you're absolutely right to be pessimistic and therefore to plan ahead for what might come next.  There are loads of NCP threads here you can read up on. 

[MoaningCrusader]

Hi Everyone... Here's what I consider my final draft...

 

I will get this sent as instructed first thing Monday morning.

 

COPIED TO NATIONAL CAR PARKS LTD

 

Re: PCN Ref XXX

 

Dear BW Legal,

 

Thank you for your rather laughable ‘Letter of Claim’ regarding the above speculative invoice sent out without consideration to the current codes of practice laid out by UK Law and your client’s own governing bodies.

  

The greed of your clients has also placed them in a rather precarious legal position regarding costs. As supposedly professional solicitors, I would’ve thought you are familiar with the UK Government’s Code of Practice for your client, a private parking company, and advised them thus. Might I be so bold as to suggest a little homework for you all and refer you to section 9 of the aforementioned Code of Practice.

 

I would suggest you contact your clients immediately and advise them to stop this bullying course of action or be prepared for a costly experience in court. I will first be seeking an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g). After this, as you have clearly done little, to no research into the specifics surrounding the claim made against myself, the registered keeper of the vehicle, I will look forward to clarifying them and the procedural short fallings of your client, while seeking the awarding of the associated costs of doing so in a court. 

 

I really can’t say I look forward to hearing from you again.

 

Regards,

[lookinforinfo]

Moaning Crusader

you do realise that you are writing to an offshoot of Rent a Thug aka Direct Collection Bailiffs. 

They would lose out in a spelling bee with Neanderthals. They do not understand words of three syllables or more. To make matters worse you are writing to them as if they are civilised. 

 

That letter will go straight over their heads and into the waste bin. Aforementioned contains 4 syllables and the poor dears cannot use a dictionary since that too has four syllables. 

 

And to ask them to stop bullying when their cohorts spend their life bullying people and see nothing wrong with it is more than hopeful.  Section 9? Isn't that something that won't happen til next year would be their response.

 

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse  is a well known mantra but DCBL prefer another one-ignore the law-which has served them well for years.

 

And DCBL would not suffer a costly experience in Court. They would still have to be paid by NCP whether they win or lose the case. So no point in advising their client not to go ahead-that would be costly for DCBL.

 

[brassnecked]

Dear Fleecer's solicitor's

 

I know, and you know the case is wholly without merit founded on sand given the new Code of practice Section 9 regarding extra costs aka Double Recovery.

and Section 6 that deals with the fitness and availability of methods of payment.

 

Your clients set up fails that test woefully so much so that any court case will be woeful; for them.

 

In order to prevent any losses to your client when you lose the case for them  it might be better to forget the whole thing and look for some other mug who is ignorant of how the law operates

 

 

 maybe something around that  but more acidic

 

I think LFI might have a suggestion to add.  Must not be nice to them.

[FTMDave]

We are starting to go round in circles.

 

The regulars here keep preparing snotty letters - which the OP doesn't want to send.

 

So now it's up to the OP what they decide to do.

 

 

[MoaningCrusader]

Thanks all for taking your time to respond to my draft.

 

I have taken all your points on board, but I do feel there's a balance. As FTMDave says, it doesn't really matter what type of response you send at this stage as there's no guarantee either will get them to change their minds. Let's face it as LFI says, they will profit from a court a case more than any of us, no matter what is said and done.

 

As I said before, I want to send something that should it be submitted in a court that I would be happy to stand by. I feel I have made it perfectly clear that I have no respect for their actions in my own words without giving away too much of what my defence will be, which is most important.

 

I will send this off and share any response I get. I hope to also be able to use my experience with all of this to help other drivers who approach this group, as your advice has been invaluable so far.

 

FTMDave - I will look into the SAR once I am back from work travels next week. I am not entirely clear on what that is exactly and how it all works. So I may contact you for clarity once I have read up on it.

 

Once again, thank you all!

 

 

[honeybee13]

Have a read of the forum information by clicking on the letters SAR in any post. You go to another screen with an explanation and a template.

 

If you have any questions then, we can answer them on the thread.

 

HB

[FTMDave]

The important thing is to send something back and put the ball firmly in NCP's court.

 

Send to both BW Legal and NCP and get two free Certificates of Posting.

 

It's a good idea to have a little gap between the snotty letter and the SAR anyway, so coming back to the forum next week is fine.

[MoaningCrusader]

Hi Guys,

 

I have now received a response from BW Legal to my letter. See attached letter. I feel we are now back to where we started. No threat of court, just another round of letters to come from these idiots.

 

Apparently, NCP have given up on the case and handed to BW Legal (who I assume are a related company?)

 

I am leaving them believing they have me on the new codes of practice not actually being enforced yet and keeping my evidence in regards to their faulty system, and NCP issuing of the PCN outside of POFA rules for private parking notices to keeper, until any court action, as clearly they have no clue what they are at.

 

Sorry, I was away on holiday end May/early June. But would like to now look at SAR as well. Or is it too late?

BWLegalResponsetoLetterBeforeClaimJune22.pdf