Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ BW Legal Letter of Claim

Posted by: IrishHistory Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 16:13
Post #1423884

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

Posted by: cabbyman Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 16:26
Post #1423891

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.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 16:48
Post #1423902

QUOTE
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.
Yes it will be *sufficient* as a response, because nothing actually stops a BW Legal claim until court stage, where ordinary, inexperienced and some very young people put forward a decent defence and win (a life experience for her, no risk, no CCJ as long as she doesn't ignore the court deadlines and paperwork).

TPS are often cancelled by complaining in the strongest terms about customer harassment, to the Retail Park owners, or Store Manager.

If that's not been tried, why not, everyone should complain about this scam and not hide from it!

SHE SHOULD COMPLAIN NOW, THIS WEEK.


Posted by: IrishHistory Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 17:56
Post #1423952

Will edit the letter and repost, thanks cabbyman.
I will also ask her to go to the campus and complain. Will update. Thanks SchoolRunMum

Posted by: IrishHistory Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 08:50
Post #1424796

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.

Posted by: ostell Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 09:46
Post #1424803

Did she complain to the owners of the car park? Shops etc.

Posted by: IrishHistory Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 15:27
Post #1426375

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!



What should we do at this stage? Any help gratefully received!

Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 15:34
Post #1426379

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 15:43
Post #1426381

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 wink.gif

Posted by: IrishHistory Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 15:52
Post #1426387

Well I'm impressed with your 'a tad off thankyou

Posted by: IrishHistory Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 18:21
Post #1426436



The original letter from BW legal, with identifying info removed.

Posted by: IrishHistory Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 18:58
Post #1426442





Will upload more pics when space frees up.


 

Posted by: IrishHistory Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 05:57
Post #1426575





First pic shows road when the car was parked.
Second shows signage ...the only sign is in the lady on the opposite side of the road. Which is confusing as there isn't a sign on the side of the road my daughters car was parked on. (I'm getting a clear pic of sent today of the signage)
Third looking up the road in opposite direction from pic one ( layby on the left in this case )
Fourth...the layby opposite the red car in pic three. The only place with a sign and looks different parking wise to the rest of the road.
Don't know if any of these help but can't hurt I figured.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 09:27
Post #1426600

Dont use forum space - its too limited. Use tinypics, imgur etc.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 12:12
Post #1426649

QUOTE
Still not signed by a person I note!


Solicitor letters are very often not signed by a person, that is perfectly normal.

Posted by: IrishHistory Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 20:40
Post #1427209

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 13:12) *
QUOTE
Still not signed by a person I note!


Solicitor letters are very often not signed by a person, that is perfectly normal.



Ah, ok! It was a bit on the letter template I found on either legal beagles or mse I think so I just used it as I didn't know any different.
I am going to respond to them tomorrow ...is nosferatu1001's working above OK to use? Complete novice in this! Thanks in advance!

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 22:54
Post #1427225

Yes, use what nosferatu1001 suggested. Don't be scared of talking about the office teaboy, as it really is that bad!

Posted by: ostell Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 07:03
Post #1427242

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.

Posted by: IrishHistory Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 14:37
Post #1427394

Thankyou SchoolRunMum for that.
Very interesting, ostell..Thankyou p, every bit of info is helping to make this s lot clearer.

Posted by: Red Eric 7 Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 23:37
Post #1427939

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?

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 08:28
Post #1427974

QUOTE (Red Eric 7 @ Wed, 24 Oct 2018 - 00:37) *
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?


Yes. You need to start your own thread, we have a one case/one thread rule here.

Also, just because you were sat in the car doesn't mean you weren't 'parked'. There are probably other angles though.

Posted by: IrishHistory Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 09:55
Post #1432502

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.



Now according to ostell, above, the isn't a contract which BWLegal now seems reliant upon? I'm assuming my next response would be on those lines? Again, any help very gratefully received!

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 10:12
Post #1432506

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.

Posted by: IrishHistory Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 14:58
Post #1432608

Thankyou very much yet again, nosferatu1001.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 16:36
Post #1432638

You can answer the question imposed you at 1a?

Show us your draft.

Posted by: IrishHistory Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 15:50
Post #1435951

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


Posted by: IrishHistory Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 09:47
Post #1440983

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!


Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 09:57
Post #1440987

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.

Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 18:02
Post #1441167

You could also ask them to define the verb 'to purse!'

Posted by: IrishHistory Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 07:28
Post #1441255

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

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 09:17
Post #1441273

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)