BW LEGAL 3 County Court Claims !

Loadsofchildren123

Also which PCNs are being pursued against you? 2 are pre-POFA so no keeper liability anyway.

Coupon-mad

as I have said all three should really be in my partners name they have just come after me as I am the registered keeper on two of them.

No, that's not true, they shouldn't. You are the defendant on the two where you are registered keeper and you have more by way of defence than a driver would, because pre-1.10.12, a keeper couldn't be held liable.

There are literally DOZENS of pre-POFA defences on here to copy from. Search for 'pre-POFA defence'.

going through the mitigation process

What do you mean mitigation; a defence is not about excuses/mitigating circs.

strinder27

Loadsofchildren123 - Thanks for your post I have messaged you as your excel parking claim is from the same admiral car park in Swansea I am being done for !

Ok so my partner will contest hers with the aid of Loadsofchildren123 advice on Admiral contract not Excel contract and permit holder not fit for purpose etc... that's great


My PCN as registered keeper from May 2012 I will send letter to Excel & BW Legal using the 'pre-POFA defence'.

My Second PCN from 2014 - Do I still go down the 'pre-POFA defence' rule ???


When I said mitigation I meant mediation .... my bad !

Umkomaas

My Second PCN from 2014 - Do I still go down the 'pre-POFA defence' rule ???

No, because PoFA was enacted in October 2012. But in 2014 Excel were not using PoFA-compliant NtKs. You need to check yours out against the following:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Loadsofchildren123

What they will do is ask the court to find that you were the driver under Elliott v Loake.


Elliott is a criminal case where there was forensic and witness evidence that the RK was the driver on the day. The PPCs claim it sets a precedent for assuming RK is the driver, which is a load of rubbish.


This should be easy for you to disprove (although perhaps not as it was 2012 and 2014!) - could you provide any sort of evidence to show that you were elsewhere on these days? That you were driving a different car on those dates? That you were in work? does the Admiral car park have a barrier that stops anyone not working there from getting in?

DoaM

I still get the impression that the OP is in a bit of a "tizz" and isn't thinking clearly through each of the claims.

Are these actual court claims? Or are these still at LBC stage? If court claims, why is OP planning to "My PCN as registered keeper from May 2012 I will send letter to Excel & BW Legal using the 'pre-POFA defence'"?

strinder27

I think I am around the last corner with this one its great when 5 years later you are given the evidence they have you can tear it apart:


Loadsofchildren123 - I used your letter to BW Legal funny enough I only have to change the year to 2012 as 17th april was the date of the PCN. I also read through it and deleted parts that were not relevant.


My PCN in 2012 I will contest that the is before POFA so cancel please.


Reading the evidence they have sent me for the 2014 they state on the ticket I was
1. parked outside the bays - in the same picture showing rows of car all parked neatly with no tickets on them. so the car park was never properly marked.
2. not displaying the permit - one picture clearly shows the permit in the to right hand side of the windscreen.

also the Notice to keeper/driver states the reason was Parked beyond the bay markings clearly there are no markings. and speaking to my partner she always parked there or similar no marking areas with no ticket.

Loadsofchildren123

The Admiral contract says absolutely nothing about parking in marked bays.
The Excel T&Cs actually say nothing about this either!!! See the link on my old thread.
My understanding of this car park is that part of it was rough gravel, and that anyone who didn't find a space on the surfaced part used to park on the gravelled part. However, there are (or were) 2 car parks next to each other and this one is now being developed on, the other one may be all surfaced.


The point is that Excel can't later add terms to a contract which already exists between driver and Admiral. The Admiral contract mentions NOTHING AT ALL about the Excel t&cs and grants Excel no rights to sue for a breach of it.
There can be no contract with Excel: there's no intention to create legal relations (between driver and excel), even if there is an "offer" of parking from Excel, the driver didn't accept it as she already had the right granted to her by Admiral; there is no consideration passing from Excel to driver because she was already paying Admiral £50 pcm for the parking.


Admiral really need to wake up. A huge proportion of their employees are young admin staff who pay the pcns because they don't want to kick up a fuss with their employer. The employee I helped was an ex-employee who probably would have paid up herself if she had still been working there.


Admiral basically lease the car park from Excel (who I think have probably rented it from the council/landowner). They pay Excel what they then charge the employee - so the deal is cost neutral for Admiral but a nice earner for Excel (which distinguishes it from Beavis where the operator had to make the profit from pcns, here Excel is pocketing £50 pcm, or near enough that amount, for EACH space in the car park. I don't know how many spaces there are, but you can do the maths. 100 spaces = £5k pcm/£60k pa profit for Excel WITHOUT HAVING TO TICKET CARS.

Loadsofchildren123

As you might gather, I am really irritated by this. Admiral can't just wash its hands of the manner in which Excel is targeting employees.


In my other thread, the plastic windscreen display thing she was given was second hand and clearly unfit for purpose and the Excel T&Cs are centred around the fact that this MUST be used to display the permit. So they are handing out nooses for the employees to hang themselves.

Coupon-mad

strinder27 wrote: »

My Second PCN from 2014 - Do I still go down the 'pre-POFA defence' rule ??

Not as such. You go down the route of stating like everyone else does with an Excel or VCS NTK from 2014 - i.e. that it could not hold a keeper liable because it was not compliant with the POFA (HINT: we know they were not).

But you can't argue that in any PCN issued to an admitted driver. You will see loads of example defences on this forum and this has been covered in so many places on so many threads.

Spend time searching the forum for 'BW legal defence' and change the search to 'show posts' (NOT show threads).

When I said mitigation I meant mediation .... my bad !

But if you read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread and what to do when, you will see we consistently say NOT to engage in Court Mediation, and the links there explain why not.