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

rachity

KeithP wrote: »

I'm not sure a Part 18 Request is appropriate in the Small Claims Track. Please check.

Up until allocation, Part 18 can be used but it is for an interrogatory, not for disclosure of evidence.


If disclosure, use CPR 31.14.
For more detailed (specific) disclosure, CPR 31.12


https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31


Or simply write and ask for early disclosure of evidence so that you can assess your legal position & take advice as necessary.

BS_Newbie

twhitehousescat wrote: »

for overs , this is being discussed elsewhere http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86957&st=0

I prefer continuation on one site , not flicking between

twhitehousecat - I just clicked on that link you provided and had to smile as that is my thread !!!!! :rotfl:
So I wont be continuing on there.

very funny !!!!

rachity

I'm betting that the relevant site signage at the time were the green ones, not the later blue ones.


If so, imho they do not offer contractual terms....they're more like a penalty for trespassing.


Kinda like 'Trespassers will be persecuted!'



Others may feel differently.

twhitehousescat

please clarify , just the tickets that BW are chasing , not other ones

where they all ticket placed on car at time of incident

and now

ticket 1 , date issued to car . and date of first letter thru post
ticket 2 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
ticket 3 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
etc
etc

did you contact BRITANNIA after screen ticket on any of those

Fruitcake

The NTK is non PoFA compliant as it does not have the Schedule 4 paragraph 8 wording. In fact, it does not mention the PoFA at all.
The scammers MUST include this wording if they wish to transfer liability to the keeper.
They have failed to do this, so only the driver can be held liable. This is why it is imperative that the driver's identity is never revealed.

Legal proceedings against the keeper should never have been started. Has your MP been involved yet?

BS_Newbie

twhitehousescat wrote: »

please clarify , just the tickets that BW are chasing , not other ones

where they all ticket placed on car at time of incident

and now

ticket 1 , date issued to car . and date of first letter thru post
ticket 2 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
ticket 3 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
etc
etc

did you contact BRITANNIA after screen ticket on any of those

Morning twhitehousecat - hopefully covered all your questions below here

The tickets relate to the ones I mentioned in my first post - first 2 from 2016 at identical times all bar a few seconds and 3 from 2018 as confirmed below

I posted the 2016 ones last night. I will post the other three in a while

All of them had tickets placed on windscreens by britannia parking (BP) employees who are on duty all day in the car park (The RK has asked them who they work for and they wear a BP uniform too)

T1) date issued to car 20/12/16 (10:40:00 - 12:35:41) date of first letter thru post 24/01/2018
T2) date issued to car 20/12/16 (10:40:18 - 12:37:41) date of first letter thru post 24/01/2018
T3) date issued to car 13/01/2018 date of first letter thru post 14/02/2018
T4) date issued to car 12/11/2018 date of first letter thru post 12/12/2018
T5) date issued to car 15/11/2018 date of first letter thru post 20/12/2018

I think because BP had refused to respond to previous correspondence the RK sent through, the RK didnt contact BP after these tickets .

twhitehousescat

BS_Newbie wrote: »

Morning twhitehousecat - hopefully covered all your questions below here

The tickets relate to the ones I mentioned in my first post - first 2 from 2016 at identical times all bar a few seconds and 3 from 2018 as confirmed below

I posted the 2016 ones last night. I will post the other three in a while

All of them had tickets placed on windscreens by britannia parking (BP) employees who are on duty all day in the car park (The RK has asked them who they work for and they wear a BP uniform too)

T1) date issued to car 20/12/16 (10:40:00 - 12:35:41) date of first letter thru post 24/01/2018
T2) date issued to car 20/12/16 (10:40:18 - 12:37:41) date of first letter thru post 24/01/2018
T3) date issued to car 13/01/2018 date of first letter thru post 14/02/2016
T4) date issued to car 12/01.2018 date of first letter thru post 31/12/2018
T5) date issued to car 15/01/2018 date of first letter thru post 07/01/2019

I think because BP had refused to respond to previous correspondence the RK sent through, the RK didnt contact BP after these tickets .

when a ticket is placed on the vehicle , the Parking Co cannot apply to the DVLA for details until day 29

it would seem that in all the cases above , they have treat them as ANPR type tickets (within 14 days) and as such have asked the DVLA for your details illegally

BS_Newbie

Fruitcake wrote: »

The NTK is non PoFA compliant as it does not have the Schedule 4 paragraph 8 wording. In fact, it does not mention the PoFA at all.
The scammers MUST include this wording if they wish to transfer liability to the keeper.
They have failed to do this, so only the driver can be held liable. This is why it is imperative that the driver's identity is never revealed.

Legal proceedings against the keeper should never have been started. Has your MP been involved yet?

Morning Fruitcake and thank you for your response which is very helpful. The RK def does not want to name to driver for the reasons now understood re keeper liability. As I mentioned in my last reply the RK probably did not respond to these tickets because of BP's refusal to answer any questions in previous correspondence sent for tickets from 2014 (this is when the RK wrote to John LEwis's lawyer)

AS the most recent correspondence only came through the RK's door around the 10th March and I have only had time to deal with this in the last couple of days no one so far has been written to .

A suitable letter to the RK's local MP would be an excellent idea - are there any examples on this forum and if not what would be the main points t state in a letter to the MP?

Umkomaas

T1) date issued to car 20/12/16 (10:40:00 - 12:35:41) date of first letter thru post 24/01/2018
T2) date issued to car 20/12/16 (10:40:18 - 12:37:41) date of first letter thru post 24/01/2018

Are you saying that T1 and T2 first letters arrived over 13 months later?

T3) date issued to car 13/01/2018 date of first letter thru post 14/02/2016

T3 - unless a time machine is involved, this is a logistical impossibility.

T4) date issued to car 12/01.2018 date of first letter thru post 31/12/2018

T4 - more than 11 months elapsed between parking event and NtK?

We are now drowning in a sea of questionable detail that isn’t taking this very far forward.

The thread has more pictures now than my grandson’s Noddy Annual!

BS_Newbie

rachity wrote: »

I'm betting that the relevant site signage at the time were the green ones, not the later blue ones.

If so, imho they do not offer contractual terms....they're more like a penalty for trespassing.

Kinda like 'Trespassers will be persecuted!'

Others may feel differently.

Morning rachity - I am not sure I understand your 1st sentence about the relevant site signage ( I was up till after 2am working on this and the caffeine in my 1st coffee has not kicked in yet )- the green ones were there until 2017 when they were replaced by the new lovely blue ones.

As others have replied already it appears that neither the green ones nor the more recent ones are compliant with the BPA COP.