Excel and BWlegal trouble!

Lukebeynon89

tinypic.com/view.php?pic=14lt2r7&s=9#.Wh4bc0qnyEc

I hope that worked^^^

That’s the receipt my friend received after paying on the night of the “PCN” I received yet had nothing tell me I received!!

i67.tinypic.com/2j4ria8.png

This pic^^
Shows two of the 4 excel car parks in the area, all very close to each other!


i65.tinypic.com/2hhqg68.png

This pic ^^^ shows the charges of the car park... All the excel car parks in the area charge the same amount! Still very confused over the whole (rover only) part!?

i66.tinypic.com/1zh0b4x.jpg

This pic is simply the bottom half of the prices screen in the last pic, as you can see it states if you pay for this car park you can use any of the other ones mentioned (the excel ones in the area)... But still unsure of the “rover only” statement!? Is that going to effect this at all? I don’t think it’s explained well enough at all!


i63.tinypic.com/2da0dxh.jpg

This pic is just a photo of the machine prices and where it says you can use ringo! Doesn’t mention anything about a valid ticket when paying online or anything like that?


Hope this clears up what I meant by paying for the car park next door, but it says you can! As well as me not having a ticket because obviously I paid online!

Again, thanks for your ongoing support!

Loadsofchildren123

But still unsure of the “rover only” statement!? Is that going to effect this at all? I don’t think it’s explained well enough at all!

Contra preferentem rule - this is a rule applied to contractual disputes which says that any uncertainty is resolved against the person who drafted the contract (ie in your favour). So you would say the rover term isn't well defined and you assumed, by applying the ordinary meaning of "rover", that this meant you were entitled to roving parking in any of the car parks (as it says in one of your other pictures/screenshots) and that by paying in one it would cover parking in the other.

Lukebeynon89

Yeah that’s what I thought was my best line of defence!

Thanks all for helping me feel a bit more confident about this!

I am going to reply to BWLegal today with this evidence and defence, hopefully they will back off?

Do you think it is best for me to reply with all this evidence for them to see or just reply stating that I have the evidence, but not actually show them?

nosferatu1001

Send anything you have to help. You cant be accused of being unreasonable
Dont expect them to back off, they have a fairly automated system.

Loadsofchildren123

The pre-action obligations of the Protocol and the old PD apply equally to you as to them. So you are expected to produce an explanation of your defence and the core evidence you would rely on. So yes, send them everything. This way you also set yourself up for seeking unreasonable behaviour costs from them.


Don't get your hopes up about them settling. Most PPCs proceed blindly to court, that's their MO. Most people panic and pay, even if they start off defending. The ones they lose/take to court are loss leaders (even the ones they win they spend more hiring an advocate for the day to present the case than they recover).