BW Legal LBC- pay to avoid action affecting job chances?

smith202

Hi everyone,

I am currently at the letter before claim stage being pursued by BW Legal and have subscribed to similar posts. I was going to wait for further correspondence, but a specific problem has arose. I'm aiming to pursue a career in law, and on the applications for vacation schemes include an area whether a claim has ever been made against me by creditors, which at the moment there hasn't, but I'm worried if I continue to dispute this and it goes further it will adversely effect my chances of getting a job.

My situation was that I parked in a pub car park which offers 3 hours free parking if you type in your number plate. I parked for a total time of 0 hours, 28 minutes and 51 seconds, I know this, because they have ANPR cameras which tell how long you are there till the second.

I wasn't aware that I had to type in my number plate, it was at night so I didn't see the notice (although from POPLA appeal they have showed the signs were lighted) and it was a system that I hadn't come across before at that pub, hence I argued I couldn't have entered into a contract that I was unaware (this was rejected by POPLA). As soon as I got the first letter I went and spoke to management at the place and they advised me to dispute the claim as a paying customer and highlighted the fact it was recently put in place: from the POPLA appeal I now know it had been there 8 months, I hadn't used it in this time.

My understanding is that pursuant to Parking Eye v Beavis to justify the charge their has to be a legitimate interest; my main argument in disputing the claim is that there is no legitimate interest. The first legitimate interest in the Parking Eye was to prevent overstaying, as the time taken by the ANPR clearly shows I could have stayed 6 times over this clearly doesn't apply. I also highlighted the unapparent need to type in your number plate to get the hours free when they have ANPR cameras that can tell how long you are there to the second.

My worry however, is that the second given legitimate interest is 'the generation of income to run the scheme'. Although I did not overstay, will BW legal be able to use this reason, despite me not overstaying (causing no commercial loss) and making the innocent mistake of not knowing to type in my number plate?

Also worth noting is that I went to the car park the day before also, for 26 minutes and had a second claim, yet they withdrew this at the POPLA stage. Being the circumstances were almost identical I took this as a strength to my case, yet I haven't brought this up with them due to worry they could reinstate it.

The charge is now £160 which as you can imagine I do not want to pay (especially on a students budget), but is it worth taking the hit to avoid the possible negative impact on my future career?

Any help is really appreciated.

The_Deep

Failing to type a VRN into s terminal is hardly likely to convince a judge that this amounts to more than an insignificant breach of contract, worthy of the award of £100 in damages to a claimant known for serial litigation and wasting court time.

Furthermore, Beavis concerns money and overstaying, it has nothing to do with alleged breaches of silly made up T&Cs.

He/she may well consider this to be a trifling matter, and, as you will know, the Law does not concern itself with trifles.

As this is a civil matter, I cannot see why it should have an effect on your later chosen career. it is very unlikely that the Law Society or the Bar Council would consider PE as a legitimate creditor imo, especially as BW have inflated the claim to include debt collectors costs. Judges are not fools, they are aware of the m.o. of these companies.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons 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.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

beamerguy

First off, the so called claim is by scammers so unlike any other type of claim.
I hope when you qualify in law you will AVOID such companies as BWL who specialise in supporting scammers.

Secondly, the Parking Eye v Beavis has no merit in your case and if BWL indicated this .... they lied to scare you

Who is the parking company.
Were you a patron of the pub
Was it made clear where to enter your reg number
Do you have pictures taken yourself of the signs when dark

Thirdly, BWLEGAL have added a fake £60 to try and extort more money from you which is called double recovery
How has BWL explained this as they dream up numerous reasons

In the LBC have BWL provided 100% proof of the claim and in particular the illuminated signs

Fruitcake

Forget the legitimate interest aspect. Get your own pics of the entrance and signs. Just because the scammers provided pictures of illuminated signs doesn't mean they were illuminated at the time of the alleged event.
If you can get a pic of an unlit sign it will help your case.
Are there signs in the pub telling motorists they need to enter a VRN? Is the keypad obvious where you need to enter details, or is it behind the bar and only brought out if you ask? Did staff warn you that you needed to enter a VRN.

Push the owner/manager/brewery chain CEO for a cancellation. Someone must have employed the scammers, and the intent won't have been to penalise genuine customers.

Contact the council to see if planning permission has been obtained for the ANPR cameras, and if Advertising Consent has been approved for the signs. Not having the latter is a criminal offence.
I don't know of any case where this has been a deciding factor in court, but a couple of PCNs have been cancelled when it has been mentioned.

Social media is also available to you. No need to rant, but if the pub can't/won't help, leaving negative feedback that genuine customers are being scammed and it has put you and your friends and family off going back to spend money there, might persuade them to have another look .

Mention the info in red from post 1 of the NEWBIES where our MPs refer to these scammers as, scammers, cowboys, bloodsuckers etcetera.

smith202

beamerguy wrote: »

First off, the so called claim is by scammers so unlike any other type of claim.
I hope when you qualify in law you will AVOID such companies as BWL who specialise in supporting scammers.

Secondly, the Parking Eye v Beavis has no merit in your case and if BWL indicated this .... they lied to scare you

Who is the parking company.
Were you a patron of the pub
Was it made clear where to enter your reg number
Do you have pictures taken yourself of the signs when dark

Thirdly, BWLEGAL have added a fake £60 to try and extort more money from you which is called double recovery
How has BWL explained this as they dream up numerous reasons

In the LBC have BWL provided 100% proof of the claim and in particular the illuminated signs

Thanks for your response, I can assure you I will be staying well clear from companies like so.

- The parking company is Britannia Parking Group Limited
- I was a paying customer, however I paid in cash so didn't have record
- I didn't feel it was evident, as otherwise there is no reason I would not have followed it. However, the conclusion of the POPLA appeal was that the operator provided evidence which showed sufficient signage/ lighting of it
- I don't currently have my own pictures of signage in the dark

The letter states, ''The Balance Due includes the £100.00 PCN charge plus Our Client's initial legal costs of £60.00, which are detailed in the car park or signage terms and conditions. Our Client's terms and conditions are clearly displayed in our client signage.''

The letter is dated 27th December (I didn't receive it until the 30th) they explain I have 16 days from this date to pay the £160 before they seek BP's instructions to commence legal proceedings. Is it worth trying to contact BW legal and explain my dispute to avoid proceedings?

Jetslick

Have you done a SAR to Britannia for all the data they hold on you?

beamerguy

smith202 wrote: »

Thanks for your response, I can assure you I will be staying well clear from companies like so.

- The parking company is Britannia Parking Group Limited
- I was a paying customer, however I paid in cash so didn't have record
- I didn't feel it was evident, as otherwise there is no reason I would not have followed it. However, the conclusion of the POPLA appeal was that the operator provided evidence which showed sufficient signage/ lighting of it
- I don't currently have my own pictures of signage in the dark

The letter states, ''The Balance Due includes the £100.00 PCN charge plus Our Client's initial legal costs of £60.00, which are detailed in the car park or signage terms and conditions. Our Client's terms and conditions are clearly displayed in our client signage.''

The letter is dated 27th December (I didn't receive it until the 30th) they explain I have 16 days from this date to pay the £160 before they seek BP's instructions to commence legal proceedings. Is it worth trying to contact BW legal and explain my dispute to avoid proceedings?

This is the standard crap of BWLegal/Britannia.

Giving 16 days to reply is a debt collectors letter from BWL.
A REAL LBC MUST GIVE YOU 30 DAYS TO RESPOND/REBUT

Go and take pictures of the signs when dark and in particular where it says the £60, if it does ?

We are seeing others who BWL are claiming for Britannia, that in reality there is no £60 mentioned ..... you need to prove this.
If not, then BWL are claiming a fraudulent amount and then you let a judge whoop them. BWL are used to that anyway

So, you now go to the pub landlord, show him what is happening to his customers. Three pubs a week are going out of business and by employing Britannia to scam people, he could be bust soon.

Does anyone in the pub tell customers about entering the reg number ???? probably not.

Get him to cancel the charge or it it goes to court, he will be your witness in court.

YOU can actually create a huge problem for this pub if you went to the media and places like trip advisor

Put pressure on the landowner and if he cannot cancel, ask him who can ...... put your impending lawyers cap on, and get the vermin trashed

Is it worth trying to contact BW legal and explain my dispute to avoid proceedings?

Probably not, all BWL are interested in is their client and money.
They are not real solicitors, just glorified debt collectors.

Get is cancelled by the pub

Read up on this wild bunch here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5672664/bwlegal-the-list-of-failures-growing

smith202

Jetslick wrote: »

Have you done a SAR to Britannia for all the data they hold on you?

I haven't sent a SAR yet, what is the main purpose of doing so?

smith202

beamerguy wrote: »

This is the standard crap of BWLegal/Britannia.

Giving 16 days to reply is a debt collectors letter from BWL.
A REAL LBC MUST GIVE YOU 30 DAYS TO RESPOND/REBUT

Go and take pictures of the signs when dark and in particular where it says the £60, if it does ?

We are seeing others who BWL are claiming for Britannia, that in reality there is no £60 mentioned ..... you need to prove this.
If not, then BWL are claiming a fraudulent amount and then you let a judge whoop them. BWL are used to that anyway

So, you now go to the pub landlord, show him what is happening to his customers. Three pubs a week are going out of business and by employing Britannia to scam people, he could be bust soon.

Does anyone in the pub tell customers about entering the reg number ???? probably not.

Get him to cancel the charge or it it goes to court, he will be your witness in court.

YOU can actually create a huge problem for this pub if you went to the media and places like trip advisor

Put pressure on the landowner and if he cannot cancel, ask him who can ...... put your impending lawyers cap on, and get the vermin trashed

Is it worth trying to contact BW legal and explain my dispute to avoid proceedings?

Probably not, all BWL are interested in is their client and money.
They are not real solicitors, just glorified debt collectors.

Get is cancelled by the pub



Thank you for the link that is really helpful.

I have a picture from daylight hours, I will go back again to get one at night. There is no mention of £60 anywhere. Although it does state at the end of the tiny T&C's 'recovery damages in respect of further action may apply', would this be included?

Half_way

- I was a paying customer, however I paid in cash so didn't have record

If you have a smartphone then it may have recorded your location



Why haven't you complained to the pub?
you should know that its their agents that are causing this trouble, and the pub is jointly liable for their actions, plus you could argue that the pub failed to inform you of the requirement to enter your VRN

KeithP

smith202 wrote: »

I haven't sent a SAR yet, what is the main purpose of doing so?

The whole purpose of sending a SAR is to find out all the information that the parking company has about you.

I would've thought that was clear, since that is what you will be requesting.