Britannia rejected Sar request

beamerguy

Mazzamonkey wrote: »

In regards to BWL trying to claim for an extra £60 which goes against what POFA says is this enough to therefore meant that they cannot try and make a claim against the registered keeper if they are relying on POFA?

The £60 scam is outside POFA

Under POFA the PPC can instruct a debt collector but POFA make no mention of adding £60 for this purpose.

The main debt collector is DRP who offer a "no win no fee" service
therefore the service is FREE to the PPC

DRP pass it on to other so debt collectors but that is their problem.

If you did not pay the debt collector and they pass it back to the PPC as they failed, then the PPC is acting in a fraudulent manner by adding £60 which the PPC did not pay.

This wheeze of the £60 was started by BWLegal who amongst their other little wheezes is simply attempting to con, defraud and scam the motorist

This is another WONGA operation which must be reported to the FCA

Mazzamonkey

8.The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 contractual costs to pursue the alleged debt, the defendant denies any interest is owing to the claimant. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

If it’s not POFA related does paragraph 8 apply?

beamerguy

Mazzamonkey wrote: »

8.The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 contractual costs to pursue the alleged debt, the defendant denies any interest is owing to the claimant. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

If it’s not POFA related does paragraph 8 apply?

You can add .....


In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

Coupon-mad

Mazzamonkey wrote: »

8.The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 contractual costs to pursue the alleged debt, the defendant denies any interest is owing to the claimant. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

If it’s not POFA related does paragraph 8 apply?

Yes, it helps that POFA says the above...but that's a peripheral point and doesn't mean a case fails if a PPC tries to recover more.

One unfair term doesn't strike out an entire contract, only the unfair term. So the fact the scammers are after more than they are allowed to pursue, doesn't render anything void, except the £60 alone.

But you are missing the main points = that there was no £60 spent anyway (because debt collector letters are sent free by scumbags like Debt Recovery Plus) and even if there was such an expenditure, the Beavis case held that 'a sum in damages' couldn't be pursued and that the £85 in that case already more than comfortably covered the very small costs of operating an automated parking regime (costs about £15 for the automated process of letters). Therefore the £85 was almost entirely profit, so there can't also be 'losses' to bolt on top and lie about!

It's explained in this defence point:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75304578#Comment_75304578

I encourage people to use that. Be more forceful about the abuse of process.

HTH

Mazzamonkey

So I have read a lot more defences in trying to improve my own. I have come across a thread where someone got a pcn for the same reason which is unsurprising given as I believe the signs are deliberately confusing re 30 minutes free parking.

My question is does it help a defence to bring the judges attention to the Ico regulations around ANPR cameras, I tried to read further into these but there is so much information. Also I have noticed that lots of statements make reference to the Beavis case..I am happy to add this, but will I be expected to know the ins and outs of this?

This paragraph applies to my case

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('Beavis') also related to a retail car park, but it is fully distinguished. In the instant case before the court, there was a 'concealed pitfall or trap' in the misleading signs which were emblazoned 'FIRST 30 MINUTES PARKING FREE'. The doctrine of contra proferentem must be applied in favour of the consumer, where terms are in any way ambiguous in their drafting or display.

So by adding this I am stating how my case is different from Beavis? I feel like I am over thinking this but I want to at least look like I know what I’m taking about 😬

nosferatu1001

C-M - i would say that claiming money that you KNOW you cannot claim - because it is above the limits imposed by POFA, or its not an incurred expense - IS an abuse of process, and the oft used sanction for abuse of process by the claimant, is to strike out the claim. I would say it is worth keeping that in.

Coupon-mad

Yes but my suggested replacement wording in the link, more than covers it, doesn't it?

Coupon-mad

My question is does it help a defence to bring the judges attention to the Ico regulations around ANPR cameras

Yes, it might do. Depends on the Judge.

I tried to read further into these but there is so much information. Also I have noticed that lots of statements make reference to the Beavis case..I am happy to add this, but will I be expected to know the ins and outs of this?

Yes and it's vital you do, IMHO.

This paragraph applies to my case

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('Beavis') also related to a retail car park, but it is fully distinguished. In the instant case before the court, there was a 'concealed pitfall or trap' in the misleading signs which were emblazoned 'FIRST 30 MINUTES PARKING FREE'. The doctrine of contra proferentem must be applied in favour of the consumer, where terms are in any way ambiguous in their drafting or display.

So by adding this I am stating how my case is different from Beavis?

Yes, and that point is important to make. You need to make the Judge realise that the Claimant just saying ''Beavis case/any parking case, same, innit!'' is not relevant to YOUR case as it's completely different.

Mazzamonkey

Thanks again all for explaining this stuff further.

I have just had my SAR request back. It is rubbish, there is nothing to say how they managed to obtain my personal information such as my work mobile. they have just sent me all of the correspondence between us which I already have I guess I could refer to this in my witness statement?

Coupon-mad

Complain to their DPO who replied with this SAR data, that they have failed to disclose the data surrounding the harvesting of your work mobile, and if they do not show that data trail you will complain to the ICO.