DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 70831--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: KF9393
Date: May 10, 2025, 3:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Continue to wait. That letter is a debt demand and can be
safely ignored. Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim
(LoC)
>
--- End Quote ---
Letter of claim received
HTML https://imgur.com/a/EtM85eD
#Post#: 70864--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: b789
Date: May 10, 2025, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Respond to the LoC with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places
reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal
presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any
particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as
per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0.
>
> If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me
liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice
to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C
logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of
the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was
served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the
Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it
would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy
the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to
establish keeper liability.
>
> As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would
be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a
claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and
seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and
vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
>
> Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the
requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
(paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice
Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you
must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the
documents/information that the protocol now requires your client
to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without
complying with that protocol.
>
> As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the
requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action
Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator
of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and
your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind
all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim.
Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the
claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to
enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate
a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring
the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.
It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a
consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete
ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the
Pre-Action Protocol.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the
Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a
formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol.
Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by
sending me the following information/documents:
>
> [indent]1. An explanation of the cause of action
> 2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
> 3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of
POFA 2012
> 4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is
claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed
arose and have been calculated
> 5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the
date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and
provide to me a copy of that contract.
> 6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs
showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said
contract.
> 7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
> 8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under
which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
> 9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
> 10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of
font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged
contravention.
> 11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any
interest and administrative or other charges added
> 12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what
is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett
or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why
I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
> 13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this
damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for
parking?[/indent]
>
> I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs
6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order
to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
>
> If your client does not provide me with this information then
I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb
Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch),
Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part
20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church
Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann
Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions
on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant
to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice
Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
>
> Until your client has complied with its obligations and
provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to
the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it,
and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court
time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client
do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph
15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this
information is provided.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, it is entirely irrelevant whether
this response is based on a so-called ‘template’ or not. I am a
layperson exercising my right to respond fully to a Letter of
Claim using all resources available to me. Any attempt by your
firm to dismiss this response on the basis that it resembles
material found online—or to bully, belittle, or intimidate me
for asserting my legal position—will be treated as
unprofessional conduct. Should your firm attempt to sidestep its
obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims by
insinuating that this response is unworthy of consideration, I
will escalate the matter by lodging a formal complaint with the
Solicitors Regulation Authority. You are officers of the court
and are expected to act accordingly.
>
> Yours faithfully,
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 70869--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: KF9393
Date: May 11, 2025, 2:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Respond to the LoC with the following:
>
> [quote]Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places
reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal
presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any
particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as
per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0.
>
> If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me
liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice
to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C
logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of
the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was
served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the
Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it
would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy
the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to
establish keeper liability.
>
> As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would
be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to
issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim
vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s
unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
>
> Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the
requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
(paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice
Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you
must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the
documents/information that the protocol now requires your client
to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without
complying with that protocol.
>
> As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the
requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action
Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator
of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and
your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind
all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim.
Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the
claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to
enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate
a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring
the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.
It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a
consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete
ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the
Pre-Action Protocol.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the
Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a
formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol.
Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by
sending me the following information/documents:
>
> [indent]1. An explanation of the cause of action
> 2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
> 3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of
POFA 2012
> 4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is
claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed
arose and have been calculated
> 5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the
date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and
provide to me a copy of that contract.
> 6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs
showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said
contract.
> 7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
> 8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under
which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
> 9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
> 10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of
font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged
contravention.
> 11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any
interest and administrative or other charges added
> 12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what
is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett
or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why
I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
> 13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this
damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for
parking?[/indent]
>
> I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs
6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order
to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
>
> If your client does not provide me with this information then
I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb
Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch),
Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part
20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church
Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann
Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions
on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant
to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice
Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
>
> Until your client has complied with its obligations and
provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to
the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it,
and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court
time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client
do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph
15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this
information is provided.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, it is entirely irrelevant whether
this response is based on a so-called ‘template’ or
not. I am a layperson exercising my right to respond fully to a
Letter of Claim using all resources available to me. Any attempt
by your firm to dismiss this response on the basis that it
resembles material found online—or to bully, belittle, or
intimidate me for asserting my legal position—will be
treated as unprofessional conduct. Should your firm attempt to
sidestep its obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
Claims by insinuating that this response is unworthy of
consideration, I will escalate the matter by lodging a formal
complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. You are
officers of the court and are expected to act accordingly.
>
> Yours faithfully,
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Thank you so much for this! The option to submit my appeal only
gives me max 2000 characters so I am not able to use the above.
Could I reply to their previous email as my formal reply to
Letter of Claim or send my reply to their generic contact email
address? Or do I need to print this off and send to them via
post?
#Post#: 70885--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 11, 2025, 6:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What appeal? You're not submitting an appeal, you're responding
to a letter of claim.
Where are you trying to submit this correspondence?
#Post#: 70949--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: KF9393
Date: May 11, 2025, 1:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> What appeal? You're not submitting an appeal, you're
responding to a letter of claim.
>
> Where are you trying to submit this correspondence?
>
--- End Quote ---
On BW Legal website via their customer portal. If I send a
secure message I am capped at max 2000 characters. If I try and
send them a message outside of the portal I am capped at 200
characters.
Their Contact Us web page only gives me three options Secure
message via customer portal, Live Chat or Phone.
#Post#: 70951--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: b789
Date: May 11, 2025, 1:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that there is no option to upload an attachment?
If that's the case, I would refer them to the answer given in
Ariel v Pressdram (1971) unless they provide an option to
respond with anything more than 2,000 characters, such as an
email address so that an attachment can be uploaded.
#Post#: 70952--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: KF9393
Date: May 11, 2025, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There is an option to upload attachments and then free text 200
characters. One way to do it then I guess copy and paste onto a
word document, upload and free text please see attached response
in relation to Letter of Concern?
#Post#: 70961--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: b789
Date: May 11, 2025, 2:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Come on! Do you really have to be hand held though this part?
Don't upload a Word document. Save it in PDF format so that it
can't be edited!!!!
#Post#: 78651--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: KF9393
Date: June 28, 2025, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Letter recieved today 28/06/25 from BW Legal
HTML https://imgur.com/a/3NnUqMv
#Post#: 78681--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: b789
Date: June 28, 2025, 12:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not an LoC, so carry on waiting.
That sign they've evidenced is never capable of forming a
contract. If this were to ever reach a hearing, you'd only have
to show that to a judge and refer to Lord Dennings "Red Hand
Rule".
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page