Peel Centre & BW Legal

[giliair]

Hi

This has suddenly resurfaced after 3 years.

The driver popped into Nandos at The Peel Centre late one evening in 2013 completely unaware that a ticket was required at that time of night.

Is the next stage to reply with @mystery1's excellent standard response letter & see what they reply with?

My only slight concern is that I go on holiday in a few weeks time & whilst someone will still be here for any letters that might arrive, I'll only be able to deal with BW Legal via email when I'm away.

Can anyone please advise whether this might prove to be a problem if BW Legal decide to take it any further?

In the meantime I did think about speaking to the manager at Nandos to see if they can help even it was 3 years ago that this happened.

Thanks in advance

GA

[mystery1]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

Yes try the manager.

No letter until you get the letter before action and then probably use the response i think you are talking about.

M1

[giliair]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

Thank you. I'll see what the manager says & wait for the next letter.

GA

[giliair]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

Ok things have moved forward. The manager at Nandos was checking with his area manager & hasn't got back to me.

I got a letter before action from BW Legal which I replied to via email & post with your detailed response.

I've just had this sent to me. I've not seen a response like this on the other BW threads I've been keeping an eye on.

Your advice on what to do next is much appreciated.

GA

[mystery1]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

Dear BW legal,


Thank you for your letter of xxxxx the contents of which are noted.


I note that you will refer your client to Elliot v Loake. Clearly this case does not set the precedent you seem to think. There was other evidence aside from ownership which allowed the court to find as they did. This included the owners statements that they had the keys, did not let anyone use the car, forensic evidence which placed the car at the scene and a statement that the vehicle had not been stolen as well as lies from the owner. This is far removed from stating that the registered keeper is assumed to be the driver because your client has no idea who was driving.


Henry michael Greenslade, the former lead adjudicator for Popla said, whilst still in his position,


''Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver...If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''


Obviously there is a degree of common sense to be applied also, why would the government bring in legislation to provide for keeper liability if one could just assume it was ? It is clear that parliament believe that Elliot v Loake was not suitable and that they felt the need to hold registered keepers liable but only with strict conditions attached.


I note that you believe your fees are reasonable but refer you to what is allowable on the small claims track under CPR 27 and PD 27.

I await the further information that you state will follow.


Yours Sincerely


M1

[giliair]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

Thank you so much for your reply.

I really appreciate you taking the time to do this for me - is there no way of sending you a gift card or something for your trouble?

Can I clarify one thing with you please?

The part where you say: 'I note that you will refer your client to Elliot v Loake'. They make no mention of this in the letter they sent, is it assumed that because they're not going to rely on POFA that they're using that instead?

Thanks again

GA

[mystery1]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

B@stards, changing things so i just can't copy and paste

Dear BW legal,


Thank you for your letter of xxxxx the contents of which are noted.


I note that your client does not rely on PoFA 2012 and subsequent research has led me to believe you/your client will refer to Elliot v Loake. Clearly this case does not set the precedent you seem to think. There was other evidence aside from ownership which allowed the court to find as they did. This included the owners statements that they had the keys, did not let anyone use the car, forensic evidence which placed the car at the scene and a statement that the vehicle had not been stolen as well as lies from the owner. This is far removed from stating that the registered keeper is assumed to be the driver because your client has no idea who was driving.


Henry michael Greenslade, the former lead adjudicator for Popla said, whilst still in his position,


''Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver...If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''


Obviously there is a degree of common sense to be applied also, why would the government bring in legislation to provide for keeper liability if one could just assume it was ? It is clear that parliament believe that Elliot v Loake was not suitable and that they felt the need to hold registered keepers liable but only with strict conditions attached.

What evidence is their of the drivers identity


I note that you believe your fees are reasonable but refer you to what is allowable on the small claims track under CPR 27 and PD 27.

I await the further information that you state will follow.


Yours Sincerely


M1

[giliair]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

Thanks once again.

You really are a mysterious one :tinysmile_twink_t2:

Let's see what they come back with next.

All the best

GA

[giliair]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

Ok, after nearly a month without a reply I finally received one this morning.

No real acknowledgement of the points in my previous response as they 'find no need to reiterate comments' but they have provided blurry photos of the signs in situ at the time and I'm still waiting for a copy of the original PCN I requested weeks ago that they said they would provide.

I'm back from holiday now so it's easier to deal with these people.

In a bizarre way it's kind of fun.

Any further advice would be most appreciated.

GA

[mystery1]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

Just send another quick email pointing to their faults and that you still await the promised PCN.

M1

[giliair]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

Just drafting a quick response - how does this look?


Thank you for your letter dated xxxxx


The photographs of the signs you supplied are of little use, do you have high resolution copies where the terms and conditions on the signs are readable?


In your letter dated xxxx you said:


‘We have requested evidence of the contravention from our client. This will be provided to you upon receipt’


1. Where is this?


2. Who are you pursuing?


3. Does your client have any evidence to identify the driver other than a mere assumption?


4. What act or omission by the driver has given rise to a cause of action?


5(a) Is your client's demand founded on (i) a contractual agreement, (ii) a breach of a contract or (iii) trespass?


5(b) If your client is not the land-owner, does its contract provide written authority to take legal action, in accordance with the BPA Legislation Guide to Operators that applied at the time?


5(c) Please confirm that your client will produce this contract for the court.


6(a) Is it correct that your £54 has been described as legal costs?


6(b) If so, is it correct that CPR 27.14 does not permit them to be recovered in the Small Claims court?


6(c) Has this charge ever been questioned by a defendant or referred to a regulatory body such as the Credit Services Association or Solicitors Regulatory Authority?


6(d) If so, what was the decision by the court or regulatory body?

[mystery1]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

That'll do


M1

[giliair]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

Just a quick update.

I had an email from Excel / BW Legal saying they've requested the documents I asked for (a copy of the original PCN & clear photos of the signs in situ at the time) and that their file remains on hold.

I've been asking for the PCN for months now.

No response to the email I posted above but I did have a reply from the SRA saying they were aware of issues with BW Legal and they are currently investigating them.

I'm not holding my breath for the SRA to actually do anything, but I do feel that BW Legal go about things in such a shoddy manner that they need to be taken to task by someone.

Let's see what happens next....

Many thanks

GA

[giliair]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

Received this from our friends at BW Legal this morning.

The pictures they have sent from The Peel Centre this time are not the same as they originally sent.

All I asked for was clearer copies.

The original says the tariff is applicable between 6am - 9pm and the new one (which isn't a photo & looks like its been taken from a website) says the tariff is 24hrs. I can post them on here if necessary.

My account is on hold for the time being.

Is it worth contacting them again answering this new letter or waiting until they come back to me with the PCN I've been asking for since this all started?

Many thanks

GA

[0011728]

Re: Peel Centre & BW Legal

I have just read info on another site that you can send a letter of "discovery" under CPR31.14 and ask them for sight of their contract with the LANDOWNER that assigns the right to enter into contracts with customers and to make civil claims in their own name. Is this correct?