Excel PCN from 2013, new letter from BW Legal- help!

LoveNorfolk

This letter is simply a no to the complaint. I will chase up the CSA tomorrow and see what they say. Either way I am still disputing the balace. They have sent photos of the car, but there is no evidence of the signs or anything to prove what a restricted area is or that the car wa parked in such an area. This would be something I would be requesting when next contacting them.

LoveNorfolk

Ah bless, they didn't like that I complained to the CSA rather than pay them the money they aren't entitled to. This is all I've had, so will no doubt have more letters after the 14 days have passed and I don't reply. Interesting they are quoting Beavis when it is completely unrelated. Be Elliot V Loake next!

The_Deep

Now report them to the SRA for mentioning Beavis.

LoveNorfolk

The_Deep wrote: »

Now report them to the SRA for mentioning Beavis.

Is that because it isn't related to this case? I would need to look into their code of practice to see how to complain. Which looking at it, doesn't seem as straight forward as the CSA, it's hard to see something that could relate, I'd need to look further.

The_Deep

Yes, point out the differences, (residential, poor signs, no commercial interest, PPC not paying the landowner £52,000 for farming rights), and copy it to BWL. Hopefully they will realise that they have chosen the wrong marine and look for easier prey.

Remember, once it gets to court things change. They have to make their case to a judge, not a wet behind the ears newly qualified law graduate at PoPLA. Also if it gets to court remind the solicitor of the penalty for unreasonable behaviour, (CPR27.14(2)(g).


.

LoveNorfolk

The_Deep wrote: »

Yes, point out the differences, (residential, poor signs, no commercial interest, PPC not paying the landowner £52,000 for farming rights), and copy it to BWL. Hopefully they will realise that they have chosen the wrong marine and look for easier prey.

Remember, once it gets to court things change. They have to make their case to a judge, not a wet behind the ears newly qualified law graduate at PoPLA. Also if it gets to court remind the solicitor of the penalty for unreasonable behaviour, (CPR27.14(2)(g).


.

Thanks, so that's all I need to do to the SRA? Complain that they are using an unrelated case in an attempt to scare? The signs were poor though as they are approx 8ft up in the photos, so will do other differences. He was in a free car park anyway!

First thing is to ring the CSA tomorrow, then it's what I do to reply to BW as I am not satisifed with their response to my complaint. I gather I could say as much and say due to this and their mentioning of Beavis I have complained to the SRA as mentioned I would in my letter to them?

LoveNorfolk

What's the commercial interest bit and is farming rights them not paying the landowner for monies they have recovered? Thanks so much.

Umkomaas

Beavis was about an overstay in a free car park with only time restrictions - a 'complex contract' according to the Law Lords. Nothing to do with alleged 'obstructive parking' in a restricted area.

In fact they clarified matters later in the day with an official tweet.

Parking charge “neither extravagant nor unconscionable… taking into account use of this particular car park & clear wording of the notices”

*my bold*

https://mobile.twitter.com/UKSupremeCourt/status/661846322417397760

They'll be quoting Henry VIII next to have you beheaded!

The_Deep

Owning the land is a commercial interest. PE pay the landowner £52,000 a year to "manage" the Beavis car park. It is free for 2 hours with no facility to purchase extra time. It is also very well signed.

LoveNorfolk

The_Deep wrote: »

Owning the land is a commercial interest. PE pay the landowner £52,000 a year to "manage" the Beavis car park.

But I don't know if Excel do this?