BW Legal - Court Claim (I have read other threads)

Umkomaas

after being told by people on this forum that it wouldn't go to court

Where has anybody said that? Why are you levelling that accusation at people who are trying to help you for free, in their own time, when it is patently untrue?

Get a grip - you've got almost a full month to understand this and then develop your defence. It's not rocket science, but neither is it painting by numbers. You just need to settle down and either put in the legwork, or capitulate and get shafted for an inordinate sum of money.

Coupon-mad

Gruffman wrote: »

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I don't think so, in your case (but we win 99% of the time anyway, all ordinary non-legal minded posters, almost all winning).

But I think you might be able to head off this case & kill it without a hearing.

You MUST submit a defence anyway and we can help with fine tuning that once you've shown us your basic draft. Pretty sure one of the example defences in the NEWBIES thread post #2 is for a mistyped VRN, so it will be easy for you to copy & adapt that.

Anyway, what I also suggest you do is send a version of this to BW Legal:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5817804/late-ntk-unreadable-signage-and-false-pcn

Read the WHOLE thread, as the words are NOT just those in post #30 (too weak)!

That letter I helped draft went to Gladstones, but yours is BW Legal. The point is the IPC told its members a year ago NOT to penalise '0' or 'O' keying errors...all you have to do is make it clear you know that fact, and put pressure on BW Legal to review the case with their client.

They will have made NO checks thus far and your letter might get the case discontinued.

BUT do not miss your defence deadline either.

Hi many thanks for this, but the way it is written is very much different to my case and pretty much everything that is stated in that letter does not apply in my case, such as i haven't sent n SAR and had information back where they have advised i did pay for parking etc.

Eh?

It is almost EXACTLY the same and will likely force PPS to discontinue.

And you will (now, without delay) be sending PPS a SAR...by email to their DPO - as explained in the NEWBIES thread.

EDIT - I see you now say you have.

So crack on with that email to BW Legal. Adapt the one I showed you, and show us first. Yes, it's meant to be written in a slightly sarcastic tone. Keying a O instead of a 0 is not an error and the Trade Body told the likes of PPS this many months back, so when they check their facts, they will see the case is unsupported by the Code of Practice of their Trade Body and will be stuck.

Do you want this killed off without a court hearing? I would!

Gruffman

Sorry Coupon-Mad, please could you send me a link to the letter, i cannot see it on the link you provided. Sorry i may be acting blind. Maybe paste it in a reply.

You think your letter is similar to the case i have? again i couldnt see it (apoligies foe that)

Thanks

G

Gruffman

also they may have told them months back but my ticket was issued in may 2016 so could they say that they were not told back then not to penalise people.

Coupon-mad

Gruffman wrote: »

Sorry Coupon-Mad, please could you send me a link to the letter, i cannot see it on the link you provided. Sorry i may be acting blind. Maybe paste it in a reply.

You think your letter is similar to the case i have? again i couldnt see it (apoligies foe that)

It's fairly similar, about a '0' or 'O' case that is unsupported by the Trade Body. You can see it in post #31 there in the link I already gave you, where I advised them how to alter their draft.

Gruffman wrote: »

also they may have told them months back but my ticket was issued in may 2016 so could they say that they were not told back then not to penalise people.

Not sure what you mean?

Gruffman

Just that you said the trade body told months back... I was just thinking they could come back and say that as my case was three years ago they weren’t under obligation not to penalise people for putting an incorrect character, such as a “0” rather than “O” - I’ll check the post out again, thanks

Gruffman

Couple of things i need to add about the particulars of the claim as i have read that article again and cannot see any real likeness to my claim. Yes there could be a similarity to the fact that the registration was slightly incorrect, but the bulk of the letter which suggests what actions this person did and also all the references to Gladstones are completely different to mine. Therefore i cannot really take anything from this. Just to be clear, this is what BW legal state in the county court claim.

"The claimants claim is for the sum of £122.82 being monies due from the Parking Charge notice (PCN) issued on 18/05/2016 at 16:04:03 at Crossways Paignton.

The PCN relates to FORD under registration XXX OXX.

The terms of the PCN allowed the defendant 28 days from the issue date to pay the PCN, bur the defendant has failed to do so.
Despite demand having been made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability
The claim also includes statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum at a daily rate of £0.02 from 18/05/2016 to 02/07/2019 being an amount of £22.82.

The claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions."

Now, i have sent the SAR email to PPS:

Hello

Please find below and attached a letter requesting PPS provide me with all information that is held about me and other details that are linked to me as appropriate under the Data Protection Act 2018. This is for an up and coming court battle that I am preparing a defence for on behalf of original PCN: A5018816.

Gareth Evans
07470 400940

5th July 2019

Premier Parking Solutions Ltd
PO Box 471,
Newton Abbot
Devon
TQ12 9FX

Dear Sir or Madam
Subject access request ( Data Protection Act 2018 / General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)

[Gareth Evans, XX XXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX XXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXX XXX, and registration numbers XXXXG OXX and XXXX 0XX

Please supply the data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law relating to myself.

If you need any more data from me to confirm my identity please let me know as soon as possible. It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request for data within one calendar month. I have provided an original Parking Charge Notice received from yourself as an initial form of identification.
If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant staff member. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113.

Yours faithfully

Gruffman

I also sent them a copy of my passport and driving license to confirm my identification

HOWEVER out of an act of madness i then sent PPS this email also which i think i may gave just messed everything else up for myself.

Can I also take this opportunity to inform you that I intend to defend your court claim against me, although this is something I do not want to have to do.

I have spoken to BW Legal and informed them of this also.

I had originally replied to invoice back in 2016 by writing to your PO box address, which included a copy of my receipt that was clearly shown on the dashboard of my car.

It appears that my registration entered was XXXX 0XX rather it should have been XXXX OXX, whilst I know there is an inaccuracy here, its pretty obvious that It was a simple mistake on a car I had only just purchased at the time, BUT I had paid for my ticket and whilst I departed from your car park at around 16:00 that day, I was paid up until 23:58. This means that PPS have in no way lost any money and therefore do not have a reason to either invoice me for such, or to claim anything from me in court.

In addition to this, I have been unwell over the past three years which have included a cancer scare, my partner miscarrying our child, and also being diagnosed with Crohns disease

The ticket I have a copy of and also can product evidence of the deterioration of my health in which will be included in other areas of my defence.

Again, I know this has gone on for some time, but would still ask you to reverse the need to go to court, and am happy to work with you to agree a settlement, but I do not think I owe you anywhere near what you are asking for.

I look forward to your response

Gruffman

So to be honest, I dont know if i have messed up here. Again im struggling to find a good example of a defence claim AND one to send to BW Legal to try and get it dismissed before actually going to court.

Again the only similarity i have with others on this form is that i put the wrong VRN (although with only a minor imperfection of a "0" rather than an "O"

everything else about what the parking company has or has not done, what has been said about them, pictures of the signage, faulty machine, etc etc does not apply to me, or i do not have evidence of. All i have is:

A copy of PCN
All the letters from PPS and DRS, and BW Legal
A clear photograph of the original ticket used on my dashboard.

Again everything i said about health etc is true and given that im starting to wonder i should just cave in and pay £257.82 (whch includes £25 court fee and £50 Legal representatives fee) I dont want to but this stress is not good for my condition either.

So if anyone can help me further write something id appreciate it so very much.

Gruffman

Coupon-mad

Gruffman wrote: »

Just that you said the trade body told months back... I was just thinking they could come back and say that as my case was three years ago they weren’t under obligation not to penalise people for putting an incorrect character, such as a “0” rather than “O” - I’ll check the post out again, thanks

But this very point about it suddenly being not allowed after a certain date, is covered in the letter I suggested you adapt & send.

Yes there could be a similarity to the fact that the registration was slightly incorrect,

It's exactly the same if it's about a Zero or letter 'O' difference.

but the bulk of the letter which suggests what actions this person did and also all the references to Gladstones are completely different to mine.

Yes I did say it will need some changes as yours is not Gladstones.

Therefore i cannot really take anything from this.

So, you don't want to email BW Legal and rattle their cage about the fact zero an letter 'O' cases are not allowed to be pursued, by order of the IPC/IAS?

I have tried to explain why you must do this, to avoid a hearing. It should be an easy one to kill once they check! You do realise they haven't looked what the case is even about thus far?

This is generic, same as all other BW Legal claims:

this is what BW legal state in the county court claim.

"The claimants claim is for the sum of £122.82 being monies due from the Parking Charge notice (PCN) issued on 18/05/2016 at 16:04:03 at Crossways Paignton.

The PCN relates to FORD under registration XXX OXX.

The terms of the PCN allowed the defendant 28 days from the issue date to pay the PCN, bur the defendant has failed to do so.
Despite demand having been made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability
The claim also includes statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum at a daily rate of £0.02 from 18/05/2016 to 02/07/2019 being an amount of £22.82.

The claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions."

So to be honest, I dont know if i have messed up here.

No, you should be telling BW Legal and PPS that they have no case due to the unrecoverable 'zero' versus 'letter O' matter being nothing at all, not a contravention according to the IPC.

You really should not have gone into your illness as it shows you as a victim who is vulnerable and who might give up and pay them.

Again im struggling to find a good example of a defence claim AND one to send to BW Legal to try and get it dismissed before actually going to court.

Again the only similarity i have with others on this form is that i put the wrong VRN (although with only a minor imperfection of a "0" rather than an "O".

EXACTLY what the IPC told PPC not to pursue and all you need to do is slightly adapt the Gladstones letter.

It is really simple. Show us your adapted version first of course.

Gruffman

Thanks Coupon-Mad

I will try and adapt it, but i would still say there is about 90% which does not apply to me, plus i dont have anywhere near the examples around signage etc. I have had an acknowledgement back from PPS around the SAR - they say that will endeavor to return this information back to me within 28 days. This will however be past the date of my claim defence deadline, so again i cannot include anything (or admittance that they actually have seen the VRM that i entered).

I have also spoken to BW Legal on the phone around the same time of writing that email to PPS, and i think I basically said what i think you are asking me to write to them about. The woman i spoke to put me on hold for about 15 minutes and then come back to say that she had spoken to the litigation department and they suggested i fill in the claim form. So im not sure (but only pointing this out so that people can see exactly what has happened and advise accordingly) it will do anything.. im going to do it anyway, but i think i will get a similar response

Again, the only Defence elements i have is the 0 rather than O mistake, a photograph of the actual ticket, and only legal piece of lingo around Abuse of Process. im pretty sure i was told earlier in the thread that if i relied on these points (which lets face it was down to me making a mistake), id lose.

Anyhow, ill create a draft email to BW Legal and post on here first. As for the Defence i'm not sure where i stand with that as i only have what i have mentioned above, plus no real time to add anything that MAY come back from the SAR.

Thanks again

Gruffman

Gruffman

Hi Coupon-Mad - How about this?

Dear BW Legal,

Further to our telephone conversation, I am writing to advise you of my full intention to defend the case set against me under County Court Claim: XXXXXXXX. I have furthermore emailed your client a SAR on 05/07/2019 which included a signed copy of the SAR and the original PCN. On 10/07/19, I immediately upon request provided a copy of my photo-card driving license and passport to comply with Data Protection Act regulations. I therefore immediately require a restriction on data processing and request the case be put on hold whilst I wait for this to be granted. In addition to this, I have replied to the court with my Acknowledgement of Service dated: 05/07/19 confirming my wish to fully defend this claim

When your client initially contacted myself with the Notice to Keeper on the 25/05/16, with respect to an alleged contravention taking place on 18/05/2016 and whilst on a short weekend away in Paignton, I immediately on my return sent Premier Parking Solutions confirmation to their then registered PO Box address copies of my paid parking ticket and for details of the basis upon which money was being claimed. I had advised them a ZERO potentially may have been incorrectly used, rather than O during entering the vehicle registration number into the parking machine (XXXX 0XX rather than correctly XXXX OXX). These communications were sent via mail in May 2016. No such response has been provided in respect to this. I currently have photographic evidence of this parking ticket which will be submitted as evidence in court.

In August I received a further letter from Premier Parking Solutions which referred to the letter dated 25/05/16 but looked very much like an additional alleged contravention had taken place on that date. This was due to the placement of the date being almost identically placed and worded where the original alleged contravention date was placed on the original PCN. As a consequence, this led me to believe Premier Parking Solutions had once again incorrectly issued a PCN and therefore a clerical error on their part.

Whilst I am awaiting details in relation to the SAR from Premier Parking Solutions, I am more than comfortable with the fact that your claimant will only confirm that the driver had paid in full the charge required for the stay in that car park for the allotted time, and therefore showing that there was no loss incurred to your client, but that they are also confirming that they have unlawfully obtained the vehicle details prematurely as the Letter 'O' and the number '0' are indistinguishable from each other on the VRN plate; should this claim not be withdrawn, a counterclaim will be issued on this basis.

The IPC has further confirmed in its own code of practice that incorrect use of the letter 'O' or number '0' is not a breach of terms. Further to this a court of law would find this so trivial that the case would be dismissed immediately.

The IPC has advised all its members that minor keying errors should not be deemed a breach of terms and conditions and is publicly telling Councils and private parking firms to cancel PCNs where a single digit error was made (either by rare driver error, or more likely because the keypad was old, faded or faulty).

Please advise why the IPC and Premier Parking Solutions are not in lockstep with this advisory since it currently can only be perceived that this is a clear case constructed based upon a template automated claim and BW Legal has not yet bothered to even ask your IPC member what the alleged contravention was?

It is simply because you believe you can sue over this non-issue on the one hand, whilst the IPC tell their members that this is 'not a breach of contract' on the other? Or do you believe the date of the event(s) matter, and are actually going to expect a Judge to believe that it 'was a breach of contract' in summer 2016 and now it's suddenly not, because the IPC said so on a certain date?

I am fully aware that other companies were 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary debate on February 2nd 2018, and again on Friday 23rd November 2018, where MPs unanimously clamoured to expose rogue parking firms and their 'cosy relationship' with firms like BW Legal making a mint from their clients' rogue ticketing and unfair fining. Trivial breaches, poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines and aggressive demands for payment have no place in the 21st century and companies like yourself are an absolute disgrace..

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.
10. A copy of the IPC Code of Practice including 2018 amendments stating where the letter 'O' cannot be accepted in the place of the number '0' or vice versa.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20); Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours Faithfully

Gruffman