Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

Castle

Redx wrote: »

Some valuable info in this thread too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6031202/pcn-at-newcastle-airport-ukppo-ias-appeal-successful

UKPPO ducked out of the IAS appeal, so something spooked them

Or maybe the IAS refused to make a decision as too whether byelaws applied or not.

StaffsSW

I've been loosely following this thread for a while as I have 9 tickets from UKPPO that BWLegal have been mithering me about for a while - I've already challenged them on whether it's bye-law or breach of contract, but not had a straight answer - possibly because the PCNs were issued in the Ltd company name.

What is interesting though is that DRPL are now chasing me for the same tickets, making the same legal threats as BWL.
I've emailed both of them copies of each others letters asking which one I should take seriously, and now waiting to see how they react.

IPC Compliance team are also aware, and I'm waiting for their response.

The_Deep

DRPL are debt collectors. They can be ignored. They should not be taken seriously.

If the solicitor is not answering your questions make a formal complaint to the SRA

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

DRPL are debt collectors. They can be ignored. They should not be taken seriously.

If the solicitor is not answering your questions make a formal complaint to the SRA

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

@TD - StaffsSW is a regular contributor here and is well on top of the game. He fights dozens of PCNs on behalf of his company. He takes no prisoners; his exploits are legend, I always enjoy reading his inputs.

The_Deep

Oops sorry Staffs. I did not read your name.

BountyHunter

Another case dismissed at hearing.

Judge based this one on inadequate signage - due to no entrance sign, the driver would not know they were entering the site and therefore could not opt out of entering a contract.

Also other signs were poorly located and writing too small. A reasonable driver could not read the signage without stopping which would then be a breach in itself.

These claims are mainly 2015-2016.

Note that there was a new entrance sign added - though still questionably inadequate - at some point after Mar 2017 (current google maps images still show the old one at this date). The other small print signs remain the same.

Old_Slobberchops

Slightly puzzling that the judge is allowing a breach of bylaws "offer" to be converted to a contractual agreement. Has there been any explanation about this?

BountyHunter

Winner winner

Another hearing today, 3rd different court, 3rd different reason for dismissing the claim.

This one was dismissed based on the fact Byelaws do not apply to the public roads.

Judge clarified at the start that the claim was being brought under Byelaws not breach of contract and agreed with the wording in the RTA and the Airports Act that the Byelaws couldn’t apply.

Claimant rep had no argument against it.

We’ll ignore the issue of jurisdiction for the result!

VWman

Hi everyone,

Thank you so much for this thread, I've been following it for a while and it's so reassuring! I'm in a similar position to receiving a PCN from UKPPO and just got a Letter of Claim a couple of weeks ago.

Early on in the thread it was "strongly recommended" to contest jurisdiction when the claim appeared. Is this still the case since 3 cases have now been to court and each time the defendant has won?

Thanks!

grimnog

Yes, I’d still strongly recommend you contest jurisdiction. The person who did so to test the waters received calls from BW Legal desperate for the case to be withdrawn. They paid all his costs to date (£100) to have it go away. There is an awful lot of work, time and effort involved in taking them all the way to court, even if we will ultimately win. Contesting jurisdiction has so far proven the quickest and easiest way to make this all go away without costing a penny.

Regarding the cases so far, I’m disappointed that none of the judges have addressed the elephant in the room that is the gaping void between Byelaws and contract law within which UKPPO and BWLegal are operating. Unfortunately it is now clear that no judge at this level wants to risk getting into that sticky area. One even said “I’m just a lowly District Judge”. This is obviously what is giving the charlatans the confidence to continue taking these cases to court, as there’s always a chance (however slim) that they might actually win one. Every case so far has been dismissed on a different technicality, but all the judges have allowed the cases to be heard, meaning it’s not open and shut in their eyes. Alas our only saving grace for the future looks like it’s going to be the new parliamentary legislation and these predatory tactics will not cease until then.