Bw legal county court letter

Fineme1

Evening all,

I’ve had a bw legal letter before claim about a fine received last year, no memory of the event and relating to a car which is normally driven by someone else.

First letter was addressed to wrong address although it had my name and some address details were correct. A second letter before claim was then sent with the correct address details. Each letter before claim appears to relate to the same alleged offence but with different address details and different deadlines.

I asked them -

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action

2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper

3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)

5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim

6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver

7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed

8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)

9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

Until your client has provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it. I look forward to receiving this evidence and also look forward to a clear explanation as to how I have been issued multiple letters of claim for the same alleged offence with variation in address details.
Yours

Their reply-

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

1. Our Client's cause of action is that you breached the terms and conditions of the contract which you entered into by parking your vehicle in the car park, by failing to make a valid payment to park.

2. Our Client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3. Our Client does intend to rely on Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

4. The details of the claim are that your vehicle parked without making a valid payment to park.
The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) which you have been issued with is for a breach of contract. The only right which you have to enter the land in question are on the terms and conditions which apply. It is unnecessary to apply an analysis of offer, acceptance and consideration quite simply because the contract was formed on mutual promises. By parking your vehicle in the car park you have entered into a unilateral contract with Our Client. Acceptance does not have to be communicated, the act of parking your vehicle is acceptance.
The £85.00 charge is regarded as a charge for contravening the terms and conditions. The sum payable following the issue of the PCN occurs on the happening of a specific event (i.e. a material breach of the Terms and Conditions) and is therefore a core term of our client’s contract with you.
It is irrelevant whether or not the charge as displayed bears any relation to the cost for parking (even where there is no cost involved). Our Client relies on the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that PCN charges, like this charge, serve a legitimate commercial interest. The relevant car parking Codes of Practice, also give guidance that £85.00 is a reasonable sum to charge.

5. Please be aware that the contract between Our Client and the landowner is a legally privileged document which you have no right to inspect. However, should this matter progress to court, the contract will be adduced as evidence.

6. The signage situated across the Car Park forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park their vehicle at the location. As the offer is a unilateral one, there is no need for the motorist to communicate their acceptance; the performance of parking in accordance with the terms and conditions is the act of acceptance. The signs are prominent and the terms and conditions are clearly displayed, and the motorist would have had the opportunity to read and understand them on parking at the Car Park. An objective observer would consider this action to have been done in acceptance of the terms and conditions.

7. Our Client is under no obligation to supply this.

8. As established members of the British Parking Association, Our Client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ('Code of Practice'). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the car park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.

9. £85.00 remains unpaid for the Parking Charge Notice. Additionally, you are also liable for our £60.00 instructions fee as your file has been passed to us.

Should you wish to discuss this mater further, please contact our office on..


Not entirely sure what I should do next...

KeithP

Fineme1 wrote: »

Not entirely sure what I should do next...

1) Wait patiently for any Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre.

2) Read or re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to understand exactly how to deal with any Claim Form that arrives.


I may have missed it, but who is the Parking Company?

beamerguy

Don't BWLegal talk rubbish ..... normal for them

"Our Client relies on the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that PCN charges, like this charge, serve a legitimate commercial interest."

If that's what they are relying upon, they will get yet
another whooping in court

BEAVIS v PARKING EYE in the Supreme Court
Often, these powerless debt collectors make reference
to the Parking Eye/Supreme court case ? They seem to
think that this is the key for them to extort money from
you.
Barry Beavis took Parking Eye to court because he claimed
the charges were unfair. The court said they were ... and
that was it. So unless you are claiming that the charge
was unfair, the Supreme court decision has no bearing
on you and it's yet more rubbish

Nothing to do with you is it ???

The £60 rubbish which they are now calling an
instruction fee .... total rubbish, courts will not allow this

Where does this £60 come from ????
READ THIS and look at ...
THE £60 SCAM OPERATED BY DRP ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74877776#Comment_74877776

So, you now need to ask them what relationship to
the Beavis case do they interpret to your case as you
will ask the judge the same question

There is no instruction fee or whatever they call it today ??

They are attempting to extort extra money from you

System

Is this a claim for one event or multiples.

Secondly multiple times they refer to the "contract" or signs. Have you asked for a copy of the contract on which their client relies as it is core to their claim. Demand they send you a copy and a copy of the site plan. And if it doesn't come write again and again so that you can demonstrate to any court the unreasonableness of their approach by withholding material information.

Coupon-mad

Have you asked for a copy of the contract on which their client relies as it is core to their claim. Demand they send you a copy and a copy of the site plan.

Seconded.

Send that this time, to the Data Protection Officer of the PPC, not BW Legal.

Attach a copy of your V5C which proves you are the data subject of that car.

Head it up as a Subject Access Request under the GDPR (SAR) and ask for all PCN data from any charges on any date (except any that were cancelled). Also all photos taken, all letters sent and all data held & processed including electronic status updates, human decisions noted on any type of file note, any notes from the day(s) from the individual ticketer(s) if this was a windscreen PCN, and any DVLA look up, and dates relating to all such data decisions.

Which PPC was this?

You need to look up their website privacy statement page to find where to send a SAR, hopefully there will be a DPO email addy.

And reply to BW Legal with a copy of the SAR sent to their client, and state that they must note the SAR and put the litigation on hold, since you object to the data processing and the SAR means you also require the file to be noted as having a current restriction of data processing, until a reasonable time (say 21 days AFTER the client replies to the SAR).

Fineme1

Evening all, well things have moved on and I have a small claims court date in a couple of months.

They have evaded all requests for more information and blocked these enquiries essentially.

Their bundle is sparse, it has a reply to each main heading of my skeleton argument.

Breach - has some enclosed photos that just shows the car, what time it enters, what time it leaves. They've compared the registration number against the car park transaction logs. The log shows T&Cs breached as there is failure to make a valid payment.

Response to my claim of sparse evidence - they simply state that T&Cs were breached. They don't state how, no mention of whether a ticket was purchased, no mention of what the issue was - wrong registration details, wrong time period purchased etc etc. Would have been a paper ticket on this occasion (I always use an app so that any funny business can be dealt with quickly) which suggests that this was a different driver (and while I am registered keeper this particular car is driven by someone else 95% of the time) and as it would have been a paper ticket there's no way that this can ever be refuted unless they specify what exactly has allegedly occurred and they haven't, even after many emails and now in the court bundle.

Signage - short paragraph about the signs being ok and the correspondence being clear

Not my car, no recall - they simply state the photos show the car reg and as they sent lots of letters and no refutation occurred back along then liability rests with owner

Land - they state they are instructed by land owner and Beavis shows that this is legitimate commercial activity. They state they are relying on contract law rather than trespass and the contracting was legitimate. They then go on to thoroughly attack by skeleton argument as simply cut and paste, nonsensical and illustrative that I have and will have no grasp of the legal technicalities required to defend myself and therefore I shouldn't waste everyones time!!

They then also include a without prejudice section with a predicable offer inside.


At present, my thoughts are that I will continue to highlight the fact that they still haven't clearly described what the contravention was- whenever I park here in my usual car, I use the app, when I've received a letter I've defended it as it's been a missing letter from the registration plate or something. They may be being coy because it's something silly like that. It's plate recognition therefore their argument is simply 'look at the photos, it's your car and the photos are taken at different times'.

Here's my rudimentary legal knowledge - The beavis case doesn't appear to apply as that was free parking, the case was that the charge was unfair and there was insufficient weight given to contract law as a contract should be entered into on an equal footing and this situation is severely loaded to one party, esp since there is no knowing that one party is unhappy until a letter is received (that mimics a PCN and therefore is assumed to be fraudulent / phishing) and therefore without a ticket stuck to the window unless you collect your little car park machine stickers (!!!!!! does this?!!) there is no factual defence of their claim available to you.

Thoughts as ever gratefully received!

Redx

I suggest you read this recent winner, similar to yours ?


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5971000


and name the PPC involved , as asked for previously

Fineme1

That's really useful, thanks. I have no evidence of what error actually occurred, whether an incorrect plate number was entered, whether a ticket was purchased or whether the car 'overstayed'! I guess I could use part of that defence as an example of how I would refute the claim if the plate number was entered incorrectly but they steadfastly refused to tell me what the actual contravention was!

Redx

so sort out your WS + EXHIBITS and ensure it states all this, plus the evidence too , ask for extra costs due to their intransigence, unreasonableness and not assisting the court which is their first duty

etc

do not miss the deadlines for your WS + EXHIBITS


is it Britannia ? or KERNOW ? or someone else ?

KeithP

Fineme1 wrote: »

They have evaded all requests for more information and blocked these enquiries essentially.

Depending on who 'they' are...

If the PPC has failed to respond to a Subject Access Request, then report that crime to the Information Commissioner's Office.

If BWL has failed to respond to reasonable requests for information "to help the parties narrow the issues", report them to the SRA.

We last heard from you in October. Guess you filed a good Defence?

Skeleton Argument filed and served a couple of months before the hearing?

Fineme1

Hi all,

I filed the skeleton argument or defence (still trying to get into the legal mindset..) and then I received the invite to small claims hearing. A few days later BW legal (representing Britannia) sent me what I guess was their 'bundle'.

While the hearing is 2 months away, my letter states I must submit my bundle within a fortnight (now a week..)

From what I have written, it sounds like many of you agree that they haven't submitted the reason for their claim, just the photos and the times. I keep re reading their material and there's nothing there, just the photos and the times..