Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

Fruitcake

BountyHunter wrote: »

Nobody that attended a hearing lost, however 2 defendants were unlucky due to different circumstances:

1 Didn’t realise they had the wrong address on MCOL from a previous claim and missed deadlines without realising. Default judgement was made against them (if that’s the correct terminology).

1 defendant couldn’t make the hearing date at the last minute due to self-employed work commitments, they had written to the court to explain, but with hindsight they perhaps should have completed n244 form? Additional costs were added to the claim for not attending.

Both of these could probably appeal the decision if they were so inclined.

I agree with the other comments. This was a stalwart effort and the scammers have been given a bloody nose.

Well done all concerned, both the victims and all those that helped. Claims for DPA/GDPR breach are still a viable option in my insignificant opinion.

BountyHunter

The defendant who contested jurisdiction received calls from BWL asking if they were willing to settle, and also asking what their defence was, to which they replied that they didn’t intend to make BWLs job any easier!

At first they agreed to just drop the claim with some terms and conditions (verbally) – the defendant said they would only consider once it was in writing.

They called daily to negotiate until told that unless they covered the £100 then the defendant would be continuing with counter claim for time and expense, stress, mental anguish, harassment, breach of GDPR etc. And also confirmed that the defendant was aware that if they lose against contest of jurisdiction, all other cases they have at airports are worthless.

“I told them I wanted £100, they offered £50. I told them £100 or court. They waited a few days then agreed.”

Another defendant was also called by BWL and asked what their defence was?

BWL WS were sent by post on the deadline dates, arriving a few days later.

Photos of signs were included in BWL WS that were not in place at the time of the alleged claims (thanks to google street view for saving previous versions).

BWL accused one of the defendants of a “copy and paste” defence that made no sense, then proceeded to copy and paste information irrelevant to the defendant in their own witness statement.

“In respect of the contents of your Defence, it is apparent that a large amount of the information contained therein has simply been “copy and pasted” from an external source we see on a regular basis. Large portions of your Defence are nonsensical………your Defence cannot be deemed within the scope of your own knowledge”

How rude?

“Much of the defence repeats itself. The Defence appears internet harvested and cannot have been within the scope of the Defendant’s own knowledge, notwithstanding her statement of truth.”

“the contents of which are believed to have been obtained from various online platforms that operate solely for the purpose of encouraging motorists to dispute their parking charges”

In response to the copy and paste allegation, a few of us manged to sneak the below into our WS:

“In respect of the assertion above that the vehicle was parked in the car park, it is apparent that a large amount of the correspondence has been “copied and pasted” from other claims, as the vehicle was not captured within a car park, neither was it parked.”

Representatives tried to intimidate defendants in the hearing waiting area – as expected from court reports on other cases.

One defendant was offered a reduced settlement rate 1 day before the WS deadline, knowing that they would be struck out for not submitting.

Of the various email addresses that BWL use, their litigation email is the only one that doesn’t have an automatic receipt confirmation. We therefore copied to all other emails “just in case” they tried to claim non receipt.

C6@bwlegal.co.uk
parking@bwlegal.co.uk
disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk
litigation@bwlegal.co.uk

Will share more once the last defendant has an outcome.

BountyHunter

From the 6 hearings, I have all names and claim numbers, and 4 of the Judges names so far to write to, with 2 to follow next week (group members currently away), so will come back looking for further guidance then.

Umkomaas

What about a major complaint to the DVLA about the release of personal data relative to Newcastle Airport?

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk (or) KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

twhitehousescat

Umkomaas wrote: »

What about a major complaint to the DVLA about the release of personal data relative to Newcastle Airport?

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk (or) KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

the DVLA have already stated that when info is asked for by electronic means , the location is not specified

Fruitcake

twhitehousescat wrote: »

the DVLA have already stated that when info is asked for by electronic means , the location is not specified

But now the group have proof that data has unlawfully been obtained for this site on many occasions, multiple complaints should be made that the system is obviously flawed if the location during KADOE request is not specified because it is central to the both the request and any court case.

twhitehousescat

Fruitcake wrote: »

But now the group have proof that data has unlawfully been obtained for this site on many occasions, multiple complaints should be made that the system is obviously flawed if the location during KADOE request is not specified because it is central to the both the request and any court case.

the dvla will simply say its down to BPA / IPC to control there members , with a threat of sanctions for failure

1505grandad

And the DVLA will not want to give up any of the income from the "no profit" keeper requests.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/private-parking-firms-will-dish-out-8.6-million-parking-tickets-this-year/

beamerguy

“I told them I wanted £100, they offered £50. I told them £100 or court. They waited a few days then agreed.”

Another defendant was also called by BWL and asked what their defence was?


I think this just goes to prove that BWLegal are completely out of their depth in the parking scam. They make themselves look stupid and really should revert back to basics such as chasing gas bills

One day the SRA will wake up and sanction these people, even kick them out as they go against the principals of the SRA

It's only a matter of time now

BPatient

I was not part of the Whatsapp group, but I am happy to send details of my case, which was discontinued. I have tried to PM Bountyhunter, but the mailbox is full and won't accept messages.