HELP PLEASE - Do I need to act on a Letter of Claim BW Legal?

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74996975#Comment_74996975

We do keep saying it...as above.

Also there is no point sending a SAR to anyone else except the parking firm. IamEmanresu said, SAR to the PPC and I agree.

That did not mean wasting your time on a SAR to all the other hangers-on.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed in the house as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an
M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Quentin

The_Deep wrote: »

…... With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Somewhat optimistic!!


OP - keep following the FAQ advice you have been directed to!


This won't be ended by the Govt in time for Christmas!!

System

I am somewhat surprised by some of the advice to the OP here. In the other thread which deals with the original ticket, the OP has said

now got a PCN from UKPPO for breach of bylawa 1315 roads surrounding Newcastle airport.

So BW saying there will be a claim is odd and needs investigated via a SAR rather than bouncing people into the Newbies thread. The longer I am here, the more I think there is some form of cult which worships the Newbies thread.

Coupon-mad

Good point about it being a 'penalty charge', if it was definitely one of those with THAT word?

I'd forgotten they flirted with that word for a while then went back to parking charge notice when they hopped to the IPC.

bennjiboy

thanks all for the advice and support, its great to be able to call on all your knowledge and experience!

Coupon-mad - the ticket is a Parking Charge Notice, not penalty.

Regarding the SAR, i only got around to emailing UKPP so that saves me time. They have responded already asking for proof of identity such as a driving license, council tax bill - do i need to send this or are the fishing?

Quentin

You aren't confirming anything they don't already know!

Their time to respond doesn't start till they get your confirmation

bennjiboy

thanks Quentin, just like to check as dont want to give these scammers any upper hand!!

System

now got a PCN from UKPPO for breach of bylawa 1315 roads surrounding Newcastle airport.

Coupon-mad - the ticket is a Parking Charge Notice, not penalty.

Hmm... amateur night in PPC world. Hi, Steve.

bennjiboy

thanks again everyone, draft letter below, not used a template just going on facts - comments appreciated. Sorry if its long, i get carried away :-)

Dear Sir

In response to your Letter of Claim to XXXX date XXXX your reference XXXX please find this response to deny all liability to the debt.

As you have stated, you have been instructed by UK Parking Patrol Office Limited to commence legal action, we look forward to the court hearing and presenting all the evidence to show that the invoice is invalid and the claim be dismissed.

Evidence includes:
• In response to the original appeal in January 2016, the adjudicator stated the following facts:
o If the Appellant parks within sight of the sign the terms of the sign apply to where they are parked.
• They then go on to state:
o I agree there is no sign in sight of the driver at the time of stopping.
• Furthermore, they state
o I cannot see on the Appellant’s evidence where they are parked.
• Regarding the place of the alleged parking, this was on the entrance to the DoubleTree Hotel. We requested evidence that this land is covered by the alleged contract between UKPP and the landowner. The response on the appeal is below, we once again hereby request this information
o There is no evidence who owns the land.
• The adjudicator also states that the signs DO NOT have to identify a boundary – surely this is illegal practice?

Based on these 5 statement alone, this case would be dismissed immediately in court and we will put forward a counter claim for loss of earning and expenses of attending a court hearing.

During this appeal in January 2016, we requested a copy of the contract between UK Parking Patrol Office and the landowner. In order for this to be fully investigated a full and unredacted copy has been requested, and by way of this letter we request this once again.

There are numerous other issues which make this debt unenforceable which will be put forward during any court hearing.

An SAR has been requested on the 2/11/2018 to UKPP of which they have 1 month to reply.

We also have the following questions which remain unanswered from the original appeal in January 2016. Please provide full and complete answers to the following questions to allow a full response to this alleged debt.
1. Is UKPPO a legal entity and trading company as the Creditor is not identified? Its impossible to contract with an unidentified entity.
2. Supreme court PE vs Beavis: Supreme court ruled that a parking charge contract is a genuine offer, that once the signs are read and the driver parks and leaves the car they have accepted the contract.
In this instance the driver spent few seconds on the site in which time they read the contract offer , declined the offer to contract and left the site without parking. The offer to contract can only be formed by performance which involves reading the sign and making a decision to accept, the offer to decline is also a lawful option. The offer to contract was declined and no performance of the contractual terms was carried out as the driver left the site within few seconds after studying the offer and deciding to decline the offer. Therefore Beavis Vs PE supreme court stands in this case.
No contract was entered.
3. The signs you claim to have are obviously not readable from a moving vehicle when in an airport environment. Notwithstanding the fact that you would need to be stationary to read any sign is in itself a dangerous maneuver on a public road. Therefore by this fact, a driver needs to stop to read a sign.
4. Do UKPPO have the authority to enforce byelaws as byelaws aren't in effect where the incident took place as Road Traffic Enactments already apply there, and this is clearly referenced in the byelaws themselves. Please send a fully signed and stamped copy of the said byelaws.
5. Bylaws are common law offences; they can only be tried at a Magistrates court and reported by a police constable. They are not statutory offences which can be reported by persons authorized by the secretary of state under devolved powers such as civil enforcement officers example, a dog fouling warden. A private parking company cannot enforce any by-law as they are not sworn to oath to HRH The Queen as a police constable is, so this accusation is actually quite ridiculous to say the least
6. Regarding the byelaws, please provide evidence that the byelaws overrule Road Traffic Legislation as the Road Traffic Legislation applies to the airport roads landside areas by virtue the public has access to them.
7. UKPPO have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA under the auspices of this being in relation to a PARKING incident, please provide evidence to show the vehicle was “Parked” as at no time did a “Parking” incident occur.
8. The alleged incident of parking occurred in the driveway to the DoubleTree Hotel, not on double red lines, nor on a yellow box junction. There is no evidence to suggest that this is part of the roads covered by your contract with NIAL, and no signage within that driveway into the hotel which is owned and operated by the hotel and not NIAL. Despite this, the vehicle did not park for any period, merely stopped for a few seconds. As your photos show, the car was at no point parked in the 20 seconds you show, nor did it park at all at the Airport.
9. Please provide full details of your contract with NIAL, signed and stamped, evidencing the legality of your invoice.
10. Please provide full details of the calculation of the £60 charge, along with details of how this figure was arrived at, in conjunction with the Bylaws you suggest in your letter. The demand for a payment of £60 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner.
11. Does UKPPO have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question regarding the driveway into the Hilton Doubletree?