DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 90478--------------------------------------------------
Re: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit –
The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: tobesb
Date: September 18, 2025, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all. I have only 2 days left to reply. What should I do? I
was parked on a visitors box!
So on the BW Legal Reply form, I plan to tick Box D in Section 1
(I dispute the debt). I will then fill it out saying:
I dispute the debt because
1. No Period of Parking Stated and No Evidence of Contract
Formation and
2. Incorrect Wording Regarding the 28-Day Period.
Then in 'Section 4: What documents are you sending with this
form? What information do you need?'
I'm presuming I send the quoted text that b789 kindly provided
in reply #9:
--- Quote ---
>
> Subject: Keeper Appeal – Charge Notice 987187 (Vehicle
DF14KYP)
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle registration DF14KYP
regarding your Charge Notice 987187.
>
> Your Notice to Keeper is fundamentally non-compliant with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4 and no
contract could have been formed with the driver, for the
following reasons:
>
> 1. No Period of Parking Stated and No Evidence of Contract
Formation
>
> Your original Notice to Driver failed to specify any “period
of parking” as required by PoFA paragraph 7(2)(a). Instead, it
recorded only a single observation time followed by a time of
issue one minute later. A one-minute snapshot is not a “period
of parking” and does not satisfy the mandatory requirement under
PoFA, as confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions, where
the court held that an operator must evidence an actual
identifiable period of parking, not merely a momentary presence.
>
> Moreover, the lack of any proper recorded parking period means
there is no evidence that the vehicle remained stationary beyond
the minimum mandatory consideration period required under the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The driver is
entitled to enter the site, review the signage, and leave
without entering into any contract.
>
> Since you have provided no evidence that the vehicle remained
in situ beyond the minimum consideration period, there is no
basis to suggest that any contractual relationship was ever
formed between the driver and Ace Security Services.
>
> This is not simply a PoFA breach: it is also a breach of the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice in failing to respect
the minimum consideration period and issuing a charge when no
contract could have been created. This breach of the Code of
Practice also amounts to a breach of the KADOE contract you hold
with the DVLA.
>
> A formal complaint has already been submitted to the DVLA
regarding these breaches and the misuse of Keeper data.
>
> This fundamental defect carries through to your Notice to
Keeper, which also fails to specify any “period of parking” as
required by PoFA paragraph 8(2)(a). The NtK simply restates the
same defective single timestamp without providing any proper
period of parking as shown in your Notice to Driver.
>
> 2. Incorrect Wording Regarding the 28-Day Period
>
> Your Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with PoFA paragraph
8(2)(f) because it misstates the mandatory warning about the
28-day relevant period.
>
> Specifically, your NtK wrongly claims that the Keeper has "28
days from the date given" to make payment.
> This is completely incorrect.
>
> PoFA paragraph 8(2)(f) expressly requires you to warn the
Keeper that the 28-day period begins "AFTER" the day on which
the Notice to Keeper is given (i.e., after it is deemed
delivered, which is two working days after posting).
>
> The use of the word "AFTER" in PoFA is deliberate, precise,
and critical. It means that the counting of the 28-day period
does not start on the day the notice is given, but starts on the
day "AFTER" the notice is deemed given.
>
> By incorrectly stating that the Keeper has 28 days from the
date given, you have misstated the Keeper's legal rights,
confused the actual payment deadline, and fundamentally failed
to comply with the requirements of PoFA 8(2)(f). Strict
adherence to the statutory wording is required for any attempt
to transfer liability from driver to Keeper. Because you have
misstated the timing rule by ignoring the crucial word AFTER,
your NtK is invalid for the purposes of PoFA.
>
> Because of these defects, you have failed to meet the
mandatory conditions under PoFA Schedule 4, and therefore you
cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. Your claim against the
Keeper must fail.
>
> If you are unable to understand the explanation provided, I
suggest you pass this appeal to a responsible adult within your
firm, preferably one who has at least a basic understanding of
PoFA and contract law and have them explain to you that you have
no hope of ever recovering a penny from the Keeper and are only
going to be wasting your firm's money on a wasted IAS appeal or,
even more on trying to litigate this.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Full Name]
> Registered Keeper
>
--- End Quote ---
However, this is a legal firm. Might they get a bit prickly
regarding the final paragraph?
Thank you for any advice!
Kind regards,
Tobes
#Post#: 90492--------------------------------------------------
Re: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit –
The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: b789
Date: September 18, 2025, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They may be a 'legal firm' but that does not mean they are
competent. You DO NOT, I repeat... DO NOT fill out any of those
forms they sent you with the LoC. You can safely bin them or
shred them for use as hamster bedding for anyone cares.
You simply email the following response to and also CC
yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim – Ref: [BW ref / PCN
987187] – VRM DF14KYP
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter of Claim is non-compliant with the Pre-Action
Protocol for Debt Claims (paras 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2) and the
Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (paras
6(a) and 6(c)). It withholds the key documents you intend to
rely upon and therefore fails to enable meaningful engagement.
>
> Liability is denied.
>
> Key issues (case-specific):
>
> [indent]1. Keeper liability cannot arise. The Notice to Driver
and Notice to Keeper each fail to state any period of parking,
contrary to PoFA Sch 4 paras 7(2)(a) and 8(2)(a). A single
timestamp followed by an “issue time” one minute later is not a
period of parking and cannot evidence contract formation.
> 2. The NtK misstates the mandatory para 8(2)(f) warning by
saying “28 days from the date given” instead of “28 days after
the day on which the notice is given”. Strict compliance is
required; your client therefore cannot transfer liability from
driver to keeper.
> 3. There is no evidence the vehicle remained beyond the
mandatory consideration period required by the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice. No contract could have been
formed.[/indent]
>
> Documents required (PD para 6(a) & 6(c)):
>
> [indent](i) Copies of the NtD and NtK (all pages/sides) relied
upon, and proof of posting for the NtK.
> (ii) All contemporaneous images/notes (attendant notes,
handheld/device logs) evidencing any period of parking on
13/03/2025 at The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon.
> (iii) The full signage pack in force on that date: site plan
showing sign locations and readable close-ups of the exact
wording.
> (iv) The unredacted landowner authority/contract showing
standing to issue charges and to litigate.
> (v) A breakdown of the sum claimed and the legal basis for
each element, identifying whether the principal £100 is alleged
as consideration or damages, and confirming that the added £60
“debt recovery” is not pursued, as it is unrecoverable.[/indent]
>
> If you commence proceedings without Protocol compliance, I
will seek a stay and costs sanctions pursuant to paragraphs 13,
15(b)–(c) and 16 of the Practice Direction and paragraph 7.2 of
the Protocol, relying on Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham &
Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments v Park West Club
(Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, and Charles Church
Developments v Stent Foundations & Peter Dann [2007] EWHC 855.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, no admission is made as to the
identity of the driver. If you assert PoFA is relied upon
notwithstanding the above defects, explain how. Otherwise
confirm you proceed on a driver-only basis.
>
> Service and correspondence
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I will not use any online portal.
Service by portal is not agreed. Please correspond and serve the
requested documents either (i) by email to [email], or (ii) by
post to the address below.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name of Registered Keeper]
> [Postal address]
> [Email]
--- End Quote ---
ANd please, try not to ignore the advice as you did earlier on
in this where you failed to send the advised email to ACE.
#Post#: 90508--------------------------------------------------
Re: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit –
The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: tobesb
Date: September 18, 2025, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you b789. Yes it was a dumb moment by myself to trust my
computer calendar to do a reminder. Lesson learnt!
So I telephoned BW Legal. The employee said they don't have an
email for contact. LIE. Found this one on MoneySavingExpert:
disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk
It works too. here's the reply. Posting this here in case anyone
else runs into this issue about contacting them. I'll let you
know how I get on.
Best wishes,
Tobes
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for contacting BW Legal.
Your email has been received and will be dealt with as soon as
possible.
Service of any court documents can be sent to
disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk provided that the name of the
court document is in the subject header, followed by the parties
names [eg: Witness Statement: ABC v XZY].
Before we are able to reply we need you to confirm a few Data
Protection Questions which we have specified below.
If your email does not contain the below information, we kindly
request you resend your email with the required information to
enable us to deal with your query effectively.
BW Legal Reference:
Full Name:
First Line of Address:
Postcode:
Date of Birth:
Telephone Contact Number:
Authorised Email Address:
Confirmation you wish for us to correspond with you via this
address (Yes/No):
We make no commitment to response times on this general email
account. Therefore, if you consider your matter is urgent, or
should you
wish to discuss your account with one of our helpful
representatives today, you can call our offices on 0113 323 3021
and we will be happy to help.
Please be advised that our standard opening hours are:
Monday- Friday
8am – 4pm
Alternatively, you can also manage your account online by
utilising our customer portal at www.bwlegal.co.uk and clicking
on the customer login link to set up your account online. Our
Customer Portal provides you with the functionality to speak to
us by webchat, raise a query, complete your income and
expenditure, make a payment or set up an affordable payment
arrangement at your convenience.
BW Legal
The above address is the office of BW Legal Services Limited
(t/a BW Legal) which is a company registered in England and
Wales under Company Registration No: 07966978. BW Legal is
authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
(569773).
Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in
respect of consumer debt collection under Reg No: 619068
Copyright in this message and its attachments remains with us.
Their contents are confidential and may be legally privileged.
They are intended solely for the person to whom they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the sender, and delete the message from your system immediately.
You must not read, copy or use the contents of the email nor
disclose it or its existence to anyone else.
Please note that communication by email is not guaranteed as
100% secure. If you wish to guarantee confidentiality, we
recommend the use of personal delivery or fax communication. We
do not accept responsibility for loss of confidentiality arising
from use of email.
Although we have checked this email for viruses, it is not
guaranteed to be virus free and it is your responsibility to
scan the message and attachments prior to opening them.
We do not accept any responsibility for the consequences of
passing on any virus.
Dispute Resolution
Department Opening Hours 08:00-16:00 (Monday to Friday)
bwlegal.co.uk
Enterprise House, 1 Apex View, Leeds, LS11 9BH
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page