Hello, I have recently received a letter of claim from BW Legal on behalf of Smart Parking relating to Church Street Carpark, Amesbury Wiltshire. They allege a "breach of terms" for "insufficient paid time" on 03 Sept 2022, apparently prior correspondence has been sent? Given it was 2.5 years ago no one can recall where they were or what they were doing, none of us has a reason to stop in Amesbury although we pass through occasionally. BW legal state the fine owed is £170 or £255 with costs if it gets to court. Relative to what most parking costs locally ( about 50p - £1.50 for 60 - 90 mins ) the fine is outrageous - this has driven me to ask for advice hoping that by making these parking firm's business models difficult they might moderate their approach. How should I reply with this in mind? Thanks in advance for any advice.
Update - having read some of the excellent advice on this site about similar/identical situations I sent the following to BW Legal. Any further comment or advice in due course would be welcome. Thank you
********************
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 14/03/25 ( ref no ***** )
We are unaware of the alleged incident over 33 months ago & cannot recall who was driving. Please provide full evidence of the charge including records, photos, and relevant contracts with your client from 2022. The correct address for service is (***** ) please erase any other from your records
The alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
We note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, which described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:
1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
We would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as we are fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
We strongly advise your client to desist. Should this matter proceed to court, these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Thank you
**************
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
