Author Topic: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit – The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY  (Read 2360 times)

0 Members and 55 Guests are viewing this topic.

Done. Will wait for a reply regarding the DVLA.

Re: ACE, they've moved it onto the debt recovery firm bwlegal. Would you mind helping me please regarding what I should say to these... people.

Kind regards,

Tobes





« Last Edit: June 22, 2025, 10:23:15 pm by tobesb »

You'd be wise not to upload documents with your full name and home address visible...

Thank you. Updated. Shouldn't be doing this tired.

Unless BW Legal send you a Letter of Claim (LoC), they are acting in the capacity of a debt collector. As for all debt collectors, you can safely ignore them as they are powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit. on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

COme back when they send an LoC.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Good evening ,

BW Legal have now come back with a Letter of Claim. Please would you help me regarding what I should do?

Kind regards,

Tobes













And these are the other documents that were in the envelope:

















« Last Edit: August 28, 2025, 10:43:50 pm by tobesb »

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

However, this is a legal firm. Might they get a bit prickly regarding the final paragraph?

Thank you for any advice!
Kind regards,
Tobes
« Last Edit: September 18, 2025, 11:30:35 am by tobesb »

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):

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.

Documents required (PD para 6(a) & 6(c)):

(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.

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]

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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

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
Like Like x 1 View List