Just looking for a bit of advice if possible. My daughter has received the following from BW Legal. She has ignored all previous communication from Total Parking Solutions. In keeping with what I already know, she is the registered keeper and we do not know who was driving on the day in question. I have constructed a letter in response to defending the claim using information from this forum and legal beagles.( with pre action protocol info and request for answers to questions and also quoted PoFA, as her not being the driver )
Is that letter going to be sufficient. I can scan and attach if needs be. I also have photos of the area and signage if needs be at this stage.
Thanks in advance
The entries and QR codes contain identifying information that needs redacting. Also, when you repost, please turn it through 90 degrees so that it's readable.
Yes, I think we need to see your draft.
Will edit the letter and repost, thanks cabbyman.
I will also ask her to go to the campus and complain. Will update. Thanks SchoolRunMum
Have amended the letter of claim and will repost shortly. I have emailed.and posted the response letter with the dispute section of the info they sebtvme filled out. I figures this first letter is just an opening gambit and this will most likely result in a court date anyway so got the inportant information in and asked them for info and photos etc regarding the 'case' . I'll post both their Log and my response below.
My daughter also want to the campus and took photos...Will they be of any use here? Happy to post if necessary.
Did she complain to the owners of the car park? Shops etc.
Just had a response to my letter ( content of which was gleaned from this and mse, legal beagles etc) from BW Legal.
I have attached it below.
She did complain at the time apparently to the uni. No dice. I have also written an email to the estates team and had a response apologising but saying TPS manage the carparks and if the gine is valid, to contact TPS and pay. They can only get involved if the fine is not valid. They also mention payment at the time would have been lower ( still £60 so totally unreasonable)
Anyway, here is the aforementioned response from BW legal. Still not signed by a person I note! Despite my asking for that in my letter to them!
CPS v AJH Films was a case involving an employer and employee going about the employer's business. They cannot possibly use that to apply to a registered keeper and a.n. other person who was not driving the car for the purposes of carrying out the registered keeper's business.
And they know it.
You cannot enter into a contract to not park somewhere. its a nonsense. This is a Trespass issue, not a breach of contract issue.
And they know it.
It isnt a fine.
Its an invoice
Maybe tell the estates team they should understand the difference.
WHo cares that its not signed? Its irrelevant. Yoru request can, and has been, ignored because you cannot compel it. Why people think they can make arbitrary requests i dont know...
WRiet back
1) I am not the driver, so *I* did not breach any terms and conditions.
2) As you admit you are not using the ONLY legislation avaialble to you to hold me, the keeper, liable - POFA2012 - I require you to state your Cause of Action agaisnt me as a defednant. Please note that your reference to CPS v AJH films has gotten even more laughable than previously - clearly not even a paralegal has written this template! - as you should be aware that 1) CPS v AJH films created no presumption and 2) it was entirey about the well established concept of employer / employee liabilty. Given that this requires proof by the claimant that such a relationshiop exists, the notion that there is a "reasonable presumption" is clearly rebutted.
You must, now, lay out your proof of the identity of the driver, and that this is the same as the keeper. As your presumption has been rebutted - and wil continue to be rebutted - furthe rreference will be unreasonable obstruction and a fauilure to comply with YOUR obligations, as officers of the court, to the overiding objectives. THis is reportable to the SRA
3) Your reference to "...pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle" is, I presume, simply another error by the office tea-boy who wrote this template, because it makes absolutely no sense to say you are not using POFA and to then insert this statement.
4) No, I am not liable for your £54, and you are again misleading a consumer as to their liabiltiy.
a) CPR27.14 states you are lying
b) POFA schedule 4 states you are lying
c) CPR27.14(2)(g) willl however make your client loiable for MY costs when your letters are shown to the court.
See what others think. No rushing. Im a tad off today
Well I'm impressed with your 'a tad off thankyou
Dont use forum space - its too limited. Use tinypics, imgur etc.
Yes, use what nosferatu1001 suggested. Don't be scared of talking about the office teaboy, as it really is that bad!
That sign is a good example of a forbidding sign.
The signage is of a “forbidding” nature. the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.
Thankyou SchoolRunMum for that.
Very interesting, ostell..Thankyou p, every bit of info is helping to make this s lot clearer.
the letter i have from BW Legal mentions that i did not raise an appeal...when i did.
i went in to the car park which is a massive spacious new set-up by a huge public attraction.
i took a phone call for work purposes and then left after twenty mins or so; i never left my vehicle or even parked in a proper bay and definitely did not enjoy the environment or other public facilities. it was early one friday afternoon and the car park was empty.
any view people?
I have received a reply to my letter I sent BWLegal which was pretty much exactly along the lines of nosfratu1001's post above. This is the response I've received.
You again point out
1) The keepr did not breach any supposed terms, so stop stating so. Your misleading of a consumer is again noted and will be used to lcaim full costs, on the indemnity basis, shoudl you be foolish enough to continue
1a) show how they havent complied with POFA, I presume you can? youve had a few weeks to brush up on it.
althernatively
1b) state your client appears to be unsure - that this was POFA or was not a POFA compliant Notice. However, having stated one way and then the other, their client is either incompletent or is misleading you the consumer - please indicate which one.
2) The Keeper is oinly potentially liable for the amount on the NtK, not any random amounts. This is clear in POFA seheudle 4.. .(give the exact ref and the text) which says ...
You require an explanation of their authority for adding on these charges, and how they can get aournd the clear will of parliament. This must reference actual legislation and not just another unverified assertion
3) You are clearly aware that CPR27.14 restricts "legal costs" from being added to a small claims track claim, which is the only track this calim can possibly end up on. So even if yo ucan somehow get around POFA restrictions, you cannot get around the CPRs.
Wha Ostell was saying is that the sig makes no offer. BW Legal are WELL aware that without an offer, there cannot be a contract, and so no contract can be breached. You require them to explain where in the sign an OFFER is made.
Thankyou very much yet again, nosferatu1001.
You can answer the question imposed you at 1a?
Show us your draft.
Back again, as requested nosgeratu1001, here is my draft letter in response. I've found the PoFA bit, but I'm lacking time at the mo to delve fully into it...I've got my thesis to hand in in a matter of weeks for my PhD so your help is absolutely vital and very much appreciated...normally, I'm very obsessive about these things but not currently!
Anyway here's my draft
I sent the letter above off to BW and this is their response. I just can't get my head around how to respond, they keep coming back with rubbish, I can see that but legal speak etc is alien to me so any pointers or advice as to how to respond would be great. Thanks!
Repreat your letter of X date, enclosed, and express surprise at their letter of Y date which failed to address any of the substantive points you raised
THe Code of Practice can say anything it likes, you want an explanaiton of how a Code of Practice from a non-regulatory body an override both POFA (statute) and the CPRs
Another response from the office teaboy will not be acceptable
You have 14 days to confirm that this matter is closed.
You could also ask them to define the verb 'to purse!'
Thank you both, will get that sorted and posted off signed for today. Your help is so gratefully received.
Cabbyman...hate 'lol' but lol! Missed that corker!
Thankyou nosferatu1001 yet again. Will get the reply written up today and sent off signed for.
I am so grateful for your help, thankyou both
Show us your draft
Dont rush this
Not signed for. First class, free proof of posting.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)