BW legal - letter of claim (NTC)

[WillowWisp]

Hi all

I received a ticket whilst parked in a customer space whilst an actual customer at a pub. I ignored it at the time, thinking it would be a simple matter of telling them we were a customer. Alas, not so. I have given them a bank statement (which shows we were there), I have contacted the landlady of the pub who said she would not have called them out over lunchtime. I even contacted my MP! NTC say I must have bought something AFTER I got the parking ticket <sigh> and today I have received a letter of claim. I am not disputing I parked there - I did! It was a clearly labelled customer parking space and we were customers. My husband is a blue badge holder which is why we specifically go to places with onsite parking. I have contacted the landlady again asking for help, although as she is not prosecuting I'm not sure what she can do.

I have made GDPR to BW Legal (and asked them to delete my phone number which they refused to do). I have also contacted my home insurance to see if I can claim under my legal cover and then hit them where it hurts when they have to pay legal fees.

Until I hear from my insurance, and to save my sanity, please help me get rid of these people for once and for all. The last correspondence is a Letter of Claim asking for payment (pah!) or a response to be received before 15 October 2020.

Thank you in advance.

[ostell]

Letter to BWL demanding a copy of all the documents they intend to use in court in order to narrow the issues between you.

SAR to the parking company.

Did the signs say you had to log in on a terminal in the pub, or similar

The landlady, or the pubs owner, can demand NTC to cancel

Unfortunately this is small claims where the chance of recovery of costs is low to nil

[WillowWisp]

Thank you, is there a template letter to respond? Do I have to fill in the questionnaire that came with the letter? Having read the other posts I'm guessing I don't but I want to send a suitably robust reply. There were no terminals etc, it's just a small pub. I have SAR the parking company and they have all the same photos as me plus a note of a telephone call at 11.43 asking them to come out.

[ostell]

But of course you bought something after the ticket was issued. Would have been extremely difficult to buy something before you parked!

Can you post up a copy of the NTK, Suitably redacted, and a photo of the signs.

Respond to them denying any debt and here's the proof that you were customers.

[WillowWisp]

I have looked high and low and the oldest letter I can find is dated 17/1/20 from QDR solicitors, saying they had been instructed by ZZPS who were acting on behalf of NTC. I tried to appeal and was pushed from pillar to post and then they told me I had run out of time. Very confusing! I took a photo of both signs (one from NTC saying you will be fined) and one from Adam and Eve (customers only) when we left. I only parked there because it said for customers only. To be honest I didn't even see the other sign when we drove in, I'm not sure if it was covered by a car or the bin, I just saw the customer's only sign.

[ostell]

ZZZPS don't own the debt and therefore can't instruct solicitors.
That customers only sign does not create a contract. Without a contract there can be no breach and therefore no charge
the other sign tries to create a contract but, I believe, fails miserably and is only stating a forbidden penalty

So that letter to the solicitor will state that you were a customer, here's the proof, and you parked next to a customer only sign, here's proof. You have therefore complied with the requirements of parking.

The "Customer Only" sign is incapable of creating a contract. The terms are forbidding to an alleged non customers. There can therefore be no contract to breach. The only claimant would be the landowner and then only for trespass.

If you continue this frivolous claim I will seek my full costs when I prevail.

[WillowWisp]

Presumably that's why BW Legal has now got involved? It's very confusing! How do I respond to the Letter of Claim from BW Legal?

[WillowWisp]

ZZZPS don't own the debt and therefore can't instruct solicitors.
That customers only sign does not create a contract. Without a contract there can be no breach and therefore no charge

I don't understand, so I have to pay?

[ostell]

Read my edited post

[WillowWisp]

If I draft something (plagiarise and pad out what you have written!) would you check it for me? I think I understand but want to make sure. You are saying that in 'usual' cases there is a contract because you have to e.g. show a permit, stay a certain amount of time etc but in this instance there is no contract, just a requirement for the parked person to be a customer? I didn't see the sign and certainly wouldn't have agreed to paying £100 to park, but won't they argue that the sign says by parking there I agreed to pay? Does that make it a (VERY) unfair contract?

This has been so stressful, I am so incredibly grateful for your help.

[ostell]

Post on here for everyone to critique

in most parking cases the signs create a contract, those signs don't. For the no parking sign they cannot claim a contract exists for something expressly forbidden, that would be perverse.

I understood that the original claim was that you weren't a customer so that is the sign to use

[WillowWisp]

Here is my draft letter (finally!). I have plagiarised and cut and pasted, but I think it's all there. I'd be grateful for any suggestions as to how it could be improved. Many thanks in advance.

BWLegal

Address


Date


Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in response to the Letter of Claim dated 10th September 2020 and received 14th September 2020.

As I have stated to you previously, on entering your client’s car park the only visible sign was one which clearly said “Parking For Customers Only”. We have provided evidence, by way of a receipt, that we were customers whilst we were parked and therefore we complied with the requirements of parking.

Your letter of claim does not contain sufficient detail and fails to provide any evidence relied upon by your client. Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

If you intend to continue with this frivolous claim, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

- Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper.
- Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
- What the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated.
- Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, provide a copy of that contract.
- A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA code of practice section 7
- A plan showing where any signs were displayed on that day.
- Details of the signs displayed on that day including - Size of signs, size of font, height at which displayed
- Details of the additions to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

Until you and your client comply with its obligations I am unable to respond fully to the alleged claim.

This claim is so absurd and a waste of our time (and the Court’s time) that we shall be seeking full costs when we prevail.

Yours faithfully,

Car keeper’s name

[ostell]

That looks good to go.

[WillowWisp]

Sorry I've just realised this should have been under the IPC thread.

[ostell]

No problem, IPC or IAS both the same evil