LBC BW legal, expired ticket , provided proof do I need to pay

Tiredofit

Hi, I have searched newbies thread can’t find answer.

Car parked in Hull port 2016, 3 days ticket purchased but expired by two hours.

Letter received to old address from PPS and BW... they have recently sent LBC to new address been here almost 2 years... I asked fir evidence of parking they have sent copy of original charge form and photographs of car.

Partner who is now my ex was the driver at time.. don’t know is current address.. so do I need to pay as I am registered keeper of car.

Fine has now escalated to £270

Many thanks for any advice

Parkingfines

You will most certainly get a court claim from BW legal ,come back when you have a court claim.

The_Deep

Fine has now escalated to £270

It is not a fine. It is an invoice for the damages they allege you have cause them to suffer as a result of an alleged breach of an alleged contract, You do not need to pay them a penny unless a jugde orders judge orders you to do so.

BWL are trying to charge, 170 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

It is a scam which Parliament is doing its level best to stop. Read on and complain to your MP.

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.

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

If you lost in court it would cost about £175 - £200. We have a good win rate against scammers at court, provided the advice here is followed correctly.

You have two choices. Give the name and address of the driver at the time.
Defend as keeper.

Note that even if you can give the above information about the driver, the keeper may still be liable if the driver refuses to acknowledge they were driving.

If you are going to defend, then you should follow the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in post 2 of the NEWBIES.

Please do complain to your MP about this unregulated scam. It really is the only way this sort of thing will be stopped.

Tiredofit

But what’s the benefit of waiting for that.... if the evidence is there I presume it will need paying...
Would it be trying to negotiate lower price given fact I was not the driver and the fact that house move meant I didn’t receive correspondence?

Parkingfines

No Just wait for any court claim and then defend it

Coupon-mad

Tiredofit wrote: »

But what’s the benefit of waiting for that.... if the evidence is there I presume it will need paying...

The benefit is they are asking for £270 but they would not get that in court; the PCN was presumably £100.

So a rare losing Defendant on here, might pay about £175 if they lost at a hearing. But you have a complete defence, can't be held liable if you play this right.

Would it be trying to negotiate lower price given fact I was not the driver and the fact that house move meant I didn’t receive correspondence?

No. Parking firms bully, they don't negotiate.

The way to earn the right to pay less, OR NOTHING, is to defend a claim.

Hull port 2016

And you were not the driver. So you have a complete defence.

A registered keeper cannot be held liable for what I assume is a PPS PCN, at Hull Docks.

I would reply and either:

- give the name and address of the driver, so he has to defend it, or

- state clearly that you were not the driver, and cannot be held liable.

You need to set the scene before court stage so you can tell the Judge that the Claimant KNEW you were not the driver, before they started litigation. Don't stay quiet, do one or the other.

The first choice hands it to your ex to defend, by you naming him with a postal address where you know he could be reasonably reached (parent's address if you don't know his current one? That would be a fair address to reach him).

The second choice keeps it with you, but you have a better defence than him!