BW Legal - Any help very much appreciated...

didgeridoooo

I was thinking today. A long while back, I emailed the Maritime Museum to ask them to cancel this PCN. They gave me some spiel which most people found hilarious here, I can't find the wording right now but will tomorrow. Since I have now seen their contract with Premier Park Limited, I wondered if I should post a link to the document for future PPL Truro cases.

Also, I am going to contact the Museum again, and advise them that this "fully approved" company they said they use to "manage" the car park has now cost me a small fortune before pulling out at the last minute, at the very least showing they had a weak case (so why wasn't it cancelled by Museum when I explained circumstances to them?) but also showing that the contract basically only allows PPL to make a profit PURELY from PCNs. The contract shows the proceeds of ticket machines go to the Museum, but 100% of all PCN income goes to the "client" - PPL. That, in my view, perfectly demonstrates the REASON they deliberately hide the ANPR usage (contrary to BPA CoP), and why they do everything else they possibly can to ensure people get PCNs for spurious reasons.

Perhaps the Museum might consider reimbursing us some of our non non-recoverable losses in defending this BS claim. Probably not, but I will enjoy letting the local press know that they earn money by 'selling' the rights to profit from a PCN only enterprise on Museum customers. What a shower of ****s. Time to let them know how I feel, along with all the usual channels. I take it the contract I was shown in disclosure/BWL's WS is not priveleged? They made such an inept job of redacting it with their failing Sharpie pen, they gave away much more than they intended to. haha

didgeridoooo

bargepole wrote: »

No, it doesn't work like that. All the requests to the 175-odd courts would simply be referred back to the MoJ, and they would then say that it would take more than 3.5 days to collate the information, and refuse the request for that reason.

I have no idea why you would want to do that anyway, appearing to be on some sort of 'crusade' will go down like a cup of cold vomit with the Judge hearing your case, who will only be concerned with the facts of that case, and not with what may or may not have happened elsewhere.

Your thread suggests that you are massively over-thinking this.

I think you missed the part where they discontinued. No Judge will be hearing my case as I no longer have one to put before a Judge, sadly.

I am not saying I would rather email hundreds of courts, just that that was my original idea and I was happy to take that on (it's only duplicate emails) if it required it. Knowing how they deal with it now, yes that would be ludicrous so I won't be doing that. But if each court had to be given a FOIA request individually, then I would have done that with no alternatives. I do think it will be interesting to see the stats on how many cases BWL pull out of. I only wondered if the courts/MoJ could say that information is not covered by FOIA because it's a private company which I am asking for information of, or their behaviour at least.

Coupon-mad

Why not actually issue a LBC to the landowner, then sue them for your losses?

didgeridoooo

I was thinking about that. I need to read the contract again. I assumed (but will check) that the only party liable for the behaviour of PPL is PPL (and perhaps BWL of course), but the principal to the contract I THINK is excluded from liability within the contract. I was thinking of arguing that by selecting PPL, the landowner (Museum) incurred this on me, but that won't fly I don't think and probably shouldn't. I will just lean on them with a stern complaint unless I can reasonably sue them, unlikely though I think.

Coupon-mad

A principal is liable for the actions of its agents. PP were agents.

didgeridoooo

I don't think it's quite that black and white. Generally, yes, but I have seen this argued back and forth for years, depending on that principle-agent relationship. More importantly, I am not sure there actually is a principal-agent relationship here. I need to read the contract again. If I owned a 5 acre field and allowed a farmer to take hay from it, and he had an accident which hurt a rambler walking through the field, I think the arguments as to whether I am liable could be long and far from clear. Moreover, if we had an agreement which freed me from all liability and required him to have public liability insurance to cover all eventualities (PPL had to have this, as stated in contract) then I think it could be murky waters at best.

In this case, PPL AND the Museum (landowner) BOTH profit from income at the site. Museum from ticket machines, PPL from PCNs only, that makes me hopeful that the principal could be held liable, but not necessarily for litigation actions taken by BWL on behalf of PPL, rather than actual physical activities at the site (such as injuring me physically). I think BWL are agent of their principal (PPL), but not sure that would extend to the Museum here. I certainly hope so, just not convinced it's a simple case of principal/agent.

Obviously I am no expert and you (CM) may know a lot more than me in these PPC cases. I only have experience of principal/agent issues in financial transactions (hedge funds, banks, IFAs) and that was a right royal mess but may not be relevant here.

Coupon-mad

I am not sure there actually is a principal-agent relationship here.

There is. The landowner contracts with the parking firm who are their agents.

waamo

I don't think it's quite that black and white

Yes it is. The museum employ the ppc. The ppc do not own the land so the people that signed a contract with them are responsible.

If you want a legal judgment to read try CPS vs AJH Films

CPS stands for Combined Parking Solutions. I will leave it to you to work out what they do and the irony of using this case to aid you.

didgeridoooo

Well I am certainly very happy to be wrong here!! I know I can 'claim' they are responsible, i just expected they could wriggle out of liability easily. I will have a read of that case asap, thanks.


(Ha, driver-keeper agency - cute )

nosferatu1001

While their contract may hold PPS as liable, thats not YOUR contract, and os you are free to sue the MM solely or jointly as you wish. The fact PPS are on the hook for all costs ....