-
So, I should ignore the chaser/reminder letter?
I assume I can ignore is as it was dated the day before I uploaded my reply to their LoC via thier portal. -
-
Yes, ignore it. Have you uploaded the response I gave you, to their portal?
-
-
Yes, I uploaded it on the 24th Sept.
This latest letter from them (chaser/reminder) was dated 23rd Sept, so was written before I uploaded it. That is why I thought i should ignore it. -
-
Update: Portal chat tool and email reply.
Portal Chat Tool (I mention this incase it is relevant in the future)
As I had not heard from them, I thought I would check on their portal but could not login. I used their chat tool to work out why, and they said I did not have the right type of account as there are two types. They then tried to respond to the letter you provided 'Response to Your Letter of Claim' in the chat tool by attaching docs and files to download. I stopped them by saying I do not want to deal with this in a chat tool and asked them to respond by email.
Email Reply (Dated 12th November 2025)
[For your reference the Reply to Letter of Claim was submitted to their portal on 24th September 2025]
They replied by email (full text at bottom of post) with a range of attachments, all of which seem to relate to only one of the two claims they are making against me, the one dated 23/07/2022. The other one was not mentioned at all.
The documents they provided seem to show a vehicle staying in a B&Q carpark for 14 minutes, and the reason for the claim is 'unauthorised parking'. I have no idea what the parking terms were back in 2022 or why the vehicle would have not been authorised to park, but I believe currently it is 'customer parking for one hour only'. I have one loose theory but do not know if I should say here, and if it is true B&Q need to do better.
Below are links to the two copies of the PCN and 'Final Notice' issued back in 2022, they included these with the most recent email. There are images of the car and licence number but I didn't include them as you can only see the licence number and I would have to redact that anyway.
Please let me know if these links do not work. I tried attaching them but that function is not available to me.
I should add, I have no memory of ever receiving the original PCN in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Their email to me:
Dear Recipient,
Thank you for contacting us, please find our response below:
We write in reference to your recent contact, the contents of which have been duly noted.
Upon entering the Car Park, the signage in situ (i.e. the "offer") made clear the terms and conditions associated with parking on the private land. By your action of entering the Car Park, and remaining there in excess of the consideration period, it is our Client's position that your actions were tantamount to an acceptance of the terms and conditions.
It is our Client's position, therefore, that you did enter into a contract with our Client, and are therefore liable for any consequences of breaching the same. If you did not agree to the terms and conditions, you should have vacated the Car Park within the consideration period. You evidently did not do this, and therefore our Client is satisfied that you remain liable for the PCN.
Please note that we will not be providing a copy of the agreement between our Client and the landowner. The document is commercially sensitive and shall only be produced if the matter progresses to formal hearing at Court. However we can confirm that our Client holds the necessary right with the landowner to issue PCN's and take legal action to recover outstanding balances where needed.
The Parking Charge issued is for the sum of £70.00 and our additional costs amount to £60.00. The relevant Code of Practice laid out by the International Parking Community (IPC) states that £70.00 is a reasonable amount to charge for the breach of contract within our Client's car parks. The additional cost of £60.00 represents the nature and type of work undertaken by debt recovery agents in the collection of the balance of the unpaid Parking Charge. Our Client is satisfied that you remain liable for the cost of the PCN and the costs of debt recovery, due to non-payment of the charge in question.
If you would like to view the full contact history or submit a new query, please log into our Customer Portal by clicking here.
-
-
Have you identified as the driver? Their email response suggests you have. They say:"By your action of entering the Car Park..." and "It is our Client's position, therefore, that you did enter into a contract..."
As the Keeper, you are only supposed to refer to the driver in the third person. So, has the driver been identified?
-
-
Hi B789,
No, I have definitely not Identified as the driver.
Before getting that email I had no way of even knowing what car their claim relates to as it was not mentioned anywhere.
-
-
Hi B789,
I was wondering if you knew what I should do next.
Any input would be very welcome and your help so far is greatly appreciated. -
-
You can respond to them as follows:Quote
Subject: Response to your email dated 12 November 2025 – Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
I note your email and attachments. Your response is deficient in several respects:1. You have provided documents only in relation to the PCN dated 23/07/2022. The other claim referenced in your Letter of Claim has not been addressed at all.
2. You have failed to provide contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date, instead relying on assertions without evidence.
3. You have refused to disclose the written agreement or chain of authority between your client and the landowner. This is not “commercially sensitive” but a core requirement under the Practice Direction and will be required in any proceedings.
4. You have not evidenced service of the Notice to Keeper, which is essential if your client seeks to rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
5. Your claim includes a £60 “debt recovery” add‑on which is not recoverable in law and will be challenged as an abuse of process.
6. Your staff attempted to respond to my Letter of Claim via your portal chat tool. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not accept chat tool communications as a valid method of correspondence. My position remains as stated: all correspondence must be by email or post. The Pre‑Action Protocol requires clear and reliable exchange of information. A chat tool is not an appropriate medium for service of documents or substantive responses, and I will challenge any attempt to rely on such communications as non‑compliant.
Until you provide the missing information for *both* claims, and do so by email or post only, I remain unable to respond substantively. Should you issue proceedings prematurely, I will seek a stay under paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and invite the Court to impose sanctions for non‑compliance.
Yours faithfully, -
-
Hi,
Thanks for this.
Should I add something asking them to tell me what they think the driver did wrong? -
-
Your initial letter already did.
-
-
Hi DWMB2,
It has been almost two months (20/11/2025) since I sent the most recent communication to BW Legal. I have had no response by letter or email, should I check their portal?
I just wonder if checking the portal will signal to them that I am concerned, marking me as someone to target.
I thought you might have an insight into this.
Thanks -
-
Hi,
I just received the below reply from BW Legal.
"Thank you for contacting us, please find our response below:
Please be advised our client clearly stated on the notice to keeper that any appeals must be made within 28 days of receiving the notice.
Please also be advised we are not an appeals service and therefore cannot accept any further appeals.
We have previously provided you with the requested information. "
Could somebody help with a reply for this?
Would I not have had to receive the notice to keeper for the 28 days appeals period to apply?
Can they just choose to not accept 'further appeals'? Does this mean they are dropping it as they have not yet told me what the charges are for?
They have not previously provided the requested information. I don't know why they are claiming that.
I hope someone can help.
-
ImgBB