Waitrose, BW Legal, Britannia Parking, John Lewis Legal team

BS_Newbie

NeilCr wrote: »

Speaking as a Waitrose customer



I'd be a bit careful about the bad publicity idea in this particular case (personally I am not sure how effective it is, anyway, but that's a different discussion)

Worth remembering that we are talking about a repeat offender here - continuing after receiving tickets. And IIRC - I am not going to go back through this huge thread - there may be more tickets out there?

People may be sympathetic to a one off story but if Waitrose responded in this example saying ''multiple offender - continued after receiving tickets - normally we are receptive to cancelling tickets but I am sure you will understand in this incident... etc etc" I can see any sympathy draining away.

And, as discussed elsewhere, the GP are not up to speed on the intricacies of the laws surrounding parking. Indeed, I can see them thinking "good on you Waitrose" - it's hard enough parking anyway and it's made more difficult by people breaking the rules.

That's a good point and I think the RK is hoping that the MD (Who interestingly used to be the manager of that particular store and has ascended through the ranks) may be sympathetic to them if he understands that BP are trying to pursue a case where they don't have the legal right to do so because of POFA non compliance

BS_Newbie

beamerguy wrote: »

A FOI is to authorities such as councils

Britannia/BWL have said they would show it in court. AGAIN, get this killed off by Waitrose

the landowner are the local council which is why I asked the question as i wasn't sure what the correct procedure was.

Umkomaas

BS_Newbie wrote: »

the landowner are the local council which is why I asked the question as i wasn't sure what the correct procedure was.

How do you know that? Doesn’t sound right. Often stores will fob off car park complainants by stating it’s nothing to do with the store as the council own the land.

One thing for absolute certain, it won’t be the council who have contracted BP, that will been Waitrose, chasing the council will be blind alley.

Coupon-mad

So now the RK is going to have to send another emai tol BP with a copy of the email from BW and request that they instruct BW to pause proceedings and can they please confirm they have done so !!!

Didn't I already advise a hundred posts back, that the rk just needs to state that they are seeking debt advice (albeit the debt is denied), which means a solicitor HAS to put the case on hold for 30 days?

As reiterated by Umkomaas today.

This is a simple stage.

No need for nearly 200 posts. It almost puts me off reading your thread.

BS_Newbie

So after reading BW's email again the RK's comment is that thy seem intent on being difficult and the RK is very unhappy about their refusal to pause proceedings . The RK wants BP to confirm they will instruct BW to give at least 30 days breathing space - the RK has sent me a proposed response to the email from BW legal and so I said I would see what the experts here thinks of this response before=re the RK sends it (RK extremely angry now about this whole thing)

firstly BW email then proposed response

Good Morning

Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.
Should you wish to discuss this matter via email, please confirm the following:

1.Please complete your full name
2.Please provide first line of your address
3.Please provide your postcode

Information about the right to restrict processing is available on the Information Commissioner’s Office website https://www.ico.org.uk. The right to restrict processing only applies in certain limited circumstances. We are not of the view that the right to restrict processing is applicable in this case. Your data is processed for the lawful purposes set out in the Privacy Notice, a copy of which is enclosed and available on https://www.bwlegal.co.uk. Whilst we acknowledge you have made a request for information with Our Client it is important to note that this does not affect the validity of Our Client’s Claim meaning that Our Client has an overriding legitimate interest to recover the sums due to them.

As such, your account will not be suspended from further collections activity unless we are instructed to do so by Our Client. Please contact us to reach a suitable resolution.

We trust this is satisfactory and clarifies our position. Should you be dissatisfied with our response you may raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

You can also contact us by signing In or registering to our Online Portal at https://www.bwlegal.co.uk.

Should you have any queries please contact our office on 0113 487 0432

Kind Regards,

BW Legal

RK PROPOSED RESPONSE

Thank you for your email

You are already aware of the information you have requested because you have already written to me, however it is confirmed here:-
1.Please complete your full name - XXXXXX
2.Please provide first line of your address – XXXXXX
3.Please provide your postcode – XXXXXXXX

It is very disappointing that you are refusing to pause the proceedings while Britannia Parking are complying with My SAR request. I have taken independent advice over this refusal and I have been advised that this is not a reasonable position for you to adopt. I have written to your client to point this out and I have requested that they instruct you to allow me breathing space.

Notwithstanding the above, I did specifically state in my first email that I was seeking debt advice and the advice from Step Change and the organisations mentioned in the information you enclosed is that consumers should be allowed breathing space by a debt collector and this is usually accepted as a minimum of 30 days. If you refuse to agree to a minimum of 30 days breathing space I will immediately make a complaint about you to the ICO and the SRA.

You may feel it is important for me to note that my request for information from your client does not affect the validity of their claim and that you also feel they have an overriding legitimate interest to recover the sums due to them. However, it is imperative that you and your client understand that because your client has failed to comply with the requirements of POFA 8 (4) they cannot hold me, the registered keeper, liable for the actions of the driver and therefore they do not have a legitimate, valid lawful claim against me.

If in your opinion your client has complied with the requirements of POFA 8 (4) please provide proof of this. If you or your client refuse to provide proof of this and do not agree to cease this unlawful action immediately, then this will be taken that you both are agreeing that you are pursuing an unlawful action against me and this will then be taken as a wilful act of unlawful harassment and I will not hesitate to report you and them to the ICO and I will also report you to SRA.

I look forward to your immediate response

RK

BS_Newbie

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Didn't I already advise a hundred posts back, that the rk just needs to state that they are seeking debt advice (albeit the debt is denied), which means a solicitor HAS to put the case on hold for 30 days?

Coupon Mad - I did reply to someone else that your advice to include about seeking debt advice was absolutely followed 100% to the letter by the RK. the RK did include this in their 1st email but it seems BW have either missed this or they are deliberately trying to be obstructive .

Hence the response that will be sent by the RK as they are now hopping mad about the attitude of this firm of so called professionals . - arrogant was about the most polite word I can repeat here to describe what they think of them :rotfl:

\you can see in the post immediately before this one what the feelings are of the RK and how they intend to reply to BW's first email .

Rest assured Copuon mad none of the good advice being given here is being ignored in any way -

BS_Newbie

Umkomaas wrote: »

How do you know that? Doesn’t sound right. Often stores will fob off car park complainants by stating it’s nothing to do with the store as the council own the land.

One thing for absolute certain, it won’t be the council who have contracted BP, that will been Waitrose, chasing the council will be blind alley.

I know this because when the RK originally asked for my help I had a meeting with the store manager and he confirmed it was the council who owned the car park land. I Then went to the council office and had another meeting and they confirmed they are indeed the landowners.

a few years ago the council sold the land to a big developer who was proposing a whole town centre redevelopment scheme including totally removing this car park to redevelop it into shops, cinema, theatre etc etc and build a multi storey car park instead . this scheme fell through and the council then bought the land back and they are now trying to have different redevelopment schemes accepted . - whatever happens this car park will disappear whenever permission is granted for the new town centre redevelopment .

twhitehousescat

was the land designated as a car park by the counsil before selling/buying and other goings on

twhitehousescat

PS , I claim post 200 on this thread

Umkomaas

It is very disappointing that you are refusing to pause the proceedings while Britannia Parking are complying with My SAR request. I have taken independent advice over this refusal and I have been advised that this is not a reasonable position for you to adopt. I have written to your client to point this out and I have requested that they instruct you to allow me breathing space.

While this might be your primary purpose, you need to be ‘dressing it up’ by stating that debt advice is currently being taken. They are under no requirement to hold up legal proceedings so that a SAR can be answered. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

You’re making a real meal of this, that’s for sure, and there’s a danger that we’re all going to be totally confused by all the copy and pastes you’re scattering over the thread. That could result in erroneous advice.

200 posts is truly beyond at such an early stage. We’ve dealt with far more complex cases in less than half the posts - and we haven’t even reached the issue of the N1, the AOS, the Defence, the WS, the evidence, the Skeleton Argument and the hearing itself. OMG :eek: