LOC - KBT/Armtrac / BWL - Sennen Beach car park

SillyBuster

Ah yes, will do thanks for reminder.

SillyBuster

I just looked back through my photos. i used to be in the habit of taking pictures of signage whenever I parked in a private car park. I took a few at Sennen and I checked back and still have them.



This case has still not even got a date for any alleged contravention yet as the monkeys at BWL keep failing to provide it. I suspect it will be covered by my images anyway, but the reason I am posting is because I can supply the original of these photos with EXIF data to prove time/date/location taken if anyone needs it. Not sure if there is a Sennen sticky or if I should make one so people can use the photos if they have a case involving the relevant dates, and with SO many being issued by BWL currently, I think there will be quite a few people who may benefit from them.



I have more cases coming in from BWL about this car park, so here are the pictures and if anyone can use them, please contact me for the original with EXIF data intact, these are just screenshots of those pictures with the date added by me.



Question - Does the use of the terminology "fixed penalty notice issued for offences" provide a good defence to me on any tickets around that time? Surely those phrases are protected terms, only for use by the statutory authorities? Has that been enough to win cases in the past? If so, not sure whether to tell BWL i have them and will be using in defence, or just go to court with them.


Thanks

beamerguy

I assume BWLegal has added a fake £60 to their claim.

What do they say the amount is for ?

I signs above make no mention of such charges

BWLegal as usual seem to be out of their depth again. It's really like dealing with Mickey Mouse

If they have added the fake £60 >>>>
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

SillyBuster

Thanks Beamer - I have 3 new claims which arrived on the doormat today. The next few months is going to be fun! I could (now think probably will) have 30-50 of these soon!

Every single one is BWL and yes they add the £60 every single time, stating its for "initial legal costs" and also stating it's clearly shown on signage.

Thanks for that link, will read that now.

Important - I took NEW pictures of the signage at Sennen YESTERDAY. I spotted that they STILL have the word "offence" being used. (Could you comment on my question above please, about how strong that makes a defence?).

I can now prove photographically that the term "offence" has been present at least somewhere on their signage from 2014 to 7 Aug 2019! (Older ones also had it on big blue sign, along with "fixed penalty notice".

Here are the pics I took yesterday, should this give me a new direction to take? For example apply to have claim struck out or mention it to BWL or not? thanks......

beamerguy

Every single one is BWL and yes they add the £60 every single time, stating its for "initial legal costs" and also stating it's clearly shown on signage.

That's what they say today ???

Where does it state "initial legal costs" ????

One does wonder if BWLegal have got all their marbles ???

As far as "offence" ....... they are confusing themselves with the authorities which of course they are not ....... simple scammers

SillyBuster

beamerguy wrote: »

Every single one is BWL and yes they add the £60 every single time, stating its for "initial legal costs" and also stating it's clearly shown on signage.
That's what they say today ???
Where does it state "initial legal costs" ????

Here ya go..... (They have a new logo too....)

beamerguy wrote: »

As far as "offence" ....... they are confusing themselves with the authorities which of course they are not ....... simple scammers

- Yes i know that, but not sure how big a deal that is to a case. How do courts look upon these cases where protected terms like those are used? Is it enough to strike claim out, or just another defence point like all the other POFA failures etc? (It's important, because I have 4 of these for same car park, and will have 20+ very soon, so if this is a CRITICAL issue to their claim, i.e. something I can win on, without going to court, it could save me a 5hit load of fuel and time!

Thanks Beamer

SillyBuster

As far as "offence" ....... they are confusing themselves with the authorities which of course they are not ....... simple scammers

Could someone tell me if this gives me any good defences against the claim, the fact they use terms which are reserved for the statutory authorities, such as "offence" and "fixed penalty". I am fairly sure, back when I incurred these PCNs, that term was so badly frowned on that it had cases thrown out. Now questioning that but grateful if someone can confirm either way.

I have 4 LoCs from BWL about Armtract and Sennen. Deciding what to do, and this point will be critical obviously, as it applies to all.

I know you can ask court to combine all claims when similar, but not sure I want to put all eggs in one basket like that, will think about it.

thanks

SillyBuster

I have received a few BWL LOCs now. It takes a lot of time to deal with all of them so before i do that, is there really any benefit to corresponding with these dimwits until court papers are filed? It's pretty clear they don't read them as the process seems totally automated. I am not being lazy. I will write letters if it will have any benefit, but not sure it does. Could someone please comment?
thanks