Liverpool airport and BW legal, Threads merged Options

[alex212]

Hi All,

I am a newbie but has followed various posts, before in relation to BW legal and JLA and used one of Gan's templates to respond to BW legal's letter threatening to take me to county court. They have now replied back. Any help is much appreciated.. Letter attached.

This post has been edited by Fredd: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 13:31

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

This belongs in the private parking forum. Have asked a mod to transfer.

[alex212]

Hi All,

I am a newbie but has followed various posts, before in relation to BW legal and JLA and used one of Gan's templates to respond to BW legal's letter threatening to take me to county court. They have now replied back. Any help is much appreciated.. Letter attached.

[ostell]

I note the statement that the byelaws are arbitrary. Trying to frighten you. They know they cannot claim keeper liability because of those "arbitrary" byelaws and ar trying to get the drivers details using threats and non applicable court cases.

I would be tempted to ignore and sit this one out.

[Churchmouse]

I note the statement that the byelaws are arbitrary. Trying to frighten you. They know they cannot claim keeper liability because of those "arbitrary" byelaws and ar trying to get the drivers details using threats and non applicable court cases.

I would be tempted to ignore and sit this one out.

The byelaws are "arbitrary"? What on Earth are they trying to say? The letter is full of gibberish. Continue to ignore.

--Churchmouse

[whjohnson]

Either ignore, or reply with something like "As you are well aware, your previous communication is full of terminological inexactitudes, so for the avoidance of doubt and for the purpose of clarity, I shall not be making any payment to your client unless ordered to do so by a court."

[SchoolRunMum]

Already fully covered in webster1's similar thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116961

Searching the forum is always better as the first thing to do, before posting. You will learn so much more by following other threads.

[alex212]

This post has been edited by alex212: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 - 16:30

[nosferatu1001]

Yes, any questions?
I assume you’ve seen the , from memory, two other BW legal threads with that exact lba and how to respond ?

[alex212]

Yes, after ignoring the previous letter, I just got this.This time they have given a date to respond and an actual threat to issue a county court claim. I have extensively trolled through posts before but not seen this. Have they previously issued a claim against anyone after these threats? How should I respond?

[kommando]

Read these 2 threads, they are not hard to find

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110024

and you have already been shown this one in post

Already fully covered in webster1's similar thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116961

Searching the forum is always better as the first thing to do, before posting. You will learn so much more by following other threads.

[Pexplaice4]

...........“pre action communications and in the event legal proceedings are to be issued, we will serve you with a letter before action.”
This is the phrase they used to someone a while ago about what was a letter of claim.
The letter you have received is a photocopy sent to lots of people. It's on cheap paper isn't it? Not what you'd expect of someone in the legal profession.
You can use that quote back to them (it is in a letter signed bw legal).
But I would enquire about what "arbitrary" means.

[hexaflexagon]

I note the statement that the byelaws are arbitrary. Trying to frighten you. They know they cannot claim keeper liability because of those "arbitrary" byelaws and ar trying to get the drivers details using threats and non applicable court cases.

I would be tempted to ignore and sit this one out.

The byelaws are "arbitrary"? What on Earth are they trying to say? The letter is full of gibberish. Continue to ignore.

--Churchmouse

Indeed, and if the byelaws are 'arbitrary' (LJLA regard them as 'obsolete' and therefore presumably irrelevant to thes matters) why has LJLA been spending the last seven years trying to get a new set of bylaws authorised by the DfT?

[alex212]

Many Thanks.

I have formulated the following reply after extensive research on this site and MSE. Please see below.


Further to your letter of claim dated 2/2/18, I have following questions:

1. What do you mean by ''No public right of way'' on a publicly-open road leading the way to/from an Airport? What evidence do you have? Please provide documentary proof, including maps dated & counter-signed by the Airport, showing designated roads, the boundaries marked out, and proof of private ownership of the roads.


2. What do you mean by ''the byelaws are arbitrary'' because that is clearly not the case according to this FOI request correspondence, and as such this is not 'relevant land' (as defined in the POFA 2012 Schedule 4) at all: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/live..._byelaws_and_re


3. The case of VCS v Phillip C9DP2D6C has already established that a charge on this site for stopping is not valid, and that a claim for a data protection breach in the region of £250 might be awarded.
4. I note a recent change to the signage on the airport approach but at the time of any alleged “offence” the driver could not possibly have entered into a legally binding contract due to inadequate signage, a point I the registered keeper will argue most strongly if I get the opportunity in court.

Your inadequate signage being proved in the recent case VCS v Phillip, claim no. C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016.
The road signs are considerably the same as in that case which VCS lost where it was deemed impossible to read the signs and enter into any supposed contractual relationship within the time it took to drive past them.

Furthermore, the signage is “forbidding” and therefore cannot form the basis of a contract.



5. Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
6. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
7. Please provide photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver.
8. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
9. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines
10. A full copy (including any Annexes, Schedules or updates) of VCS' contract from the Airport, that you intend to rely upon at any hearing.
11. Are you pursuing me under the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, and if not, on what basis are you alleging liability rests with the registered keeper?
12. I also once again urge you to my response last time to which you have not answered specifically to each statement. This is poor from a legal department. I urge you to read that letter again.



This charge is disputed, and you must now refer this matter back to your client and cease and desist all contact with me. If you persist, I will not hesitate to report BW Legal to the SRA and CSA and counterclaim for unauthorised access to and illegal use of personal data.

I will also charge for my time; NOT at 19 pounds/hour but at the rate at which I normally work as the amount of time lost in preparation for the case will be charged at that rate (estimate 150 pounds/hour). At the present time I estimate that to be 25 hours x 150 = 3750 pounds. I will also charge for mental harassment and seek compensation for the same.

I will vigorously defend this case in any court proceedings.

Looking forward to suggestions/improvements from experienced fellow members.
Thanks

[nosferatu1001]

Not a hope of you being able to charge at that rate. Mental harassment isn’t a thing.

[4101]

I would like to see someone send them the DfT letter saying bylaws are in force and see what BW has to say.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1986...%20F0011123.pdf

[alex212]

Worth a try though?

[Umkomaas]

Worth a try though?

Max (capped) rate for loss of earnings in the county court is £95 - and there have been a number of cases where Judges have awarded no loss of earnings to a self-employed defendant. You need your costs schedule to be credible, don't take the chance of the whole lot being dismissed by trying to claim an amount for loss of earnings that just cannot be awarded.

IJS. (Irritable Judge Syndrome)!