LOC - BW Legal - Premier Park Ltd - Residential carpark defence strategy

ro05ter

Hi

I have recently received a LOC from BW Legal in relation to a PCN attached to my vehicle by Premier Park Ltd (PPL) in a residential carpark in August 2014 for failing to display a valid permit.

So far I have submitted a SAR to Premier Park and my former landlord, which I have now received.
Having read the NEWBIES thread, my original intention was to use the ‘primacy of contract’ defence as I had a right to use the car park as I was a tenant of the building. However, reviewing my tenancy agreement I cannot see any reference to parking arrangements, and so I wonder if I would be unable to make this argument as it’s not covered by my tenancy agreement?

At the time the PCN was issued the photographic evidence does show a parking permit being displayed in the vehicle. This was the previous permit issued to me by the landlord which had been valid until two days before the PCN was issued. PPL took over management of the car park the day before the PCN was issued. It is difficult to recall exactly now, but it is highly probable the driver parked the vehicle in the car park before PPL took over the management, and so it would have been displaying a valid permit at the time it was parked. Is there any mileage in this sort of defence, although very difficult to prove given the time that has passed? Unfortunately all correspondence from the landlord in relation to permits is no longer available.

Also – about 25 days after the PCN was issued I moved out of the property. I therefore never received with the ‘first reminder’ which was the initial Notice to Keeper (NtK). I can evidence I moved out – so is there any mileage in arguing I never received the NtK? From what I can tell I cannot see any obvious non-compliance with POFA 2012 in the NtK issued, I just never received it.

The first notice I received was a letter in October 2014 from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd (DRPL) via postal redirection saying the debt had been passed to them and I should contact them. At that time I immediately contacted PPL to appeal and explained I had moved out (providing evidence) so had never received their NtK. PPL flatly refused to consider the appeal as it was out of time and I had to deal with DRPL. I issued a further letter to PPL to say they were being unreasonable and there was no reason for them not to consider an appeal, and that was my last contact with them until BW Legal letter received in May 2019. Is there any merit in arguing their behaviour was unreasonable given the extenuating circumstances of me not receiving the NtK?

Finally, if there are no further avenues of defence above, I understand I am left to try the Abuse of Process argument, because the LOC includes the additional £60 (and other costs) on top of the original charge. If they pursue me as keeper of the vehicle under POFA 2012 I understand they cannot seek this additional charge.

I know this is not at court stage yet, but as it is BW Legal I understand it is highly likely it will get to that point, so I wanted to understand all my possible avenues of defence before it comes to the drafting stage.

beamerguy

Finally, if there are no further avenues of defence above, I understand I am left to try the Abuse of Process argument, because the LOC includes the additional £60 (and other costs) on top of the original charge. If they pursue me as keeper of the vehicle under POFA 2012 I understand they cannot seek this additional charge.

I know this is not at court stage yet, but as it is BW Legal I understand it is highly likely it will get to that point, so I wanted to understand all my possible avenues of defence before it comes to the drafting stage.

How do BWLegal explain the £60 ????

waamo

Is your tenancy agreement completely silent on the matter of parking? Did you get an allocated space?

If it is silent on the matter then clearly you didn't agree to having a permit when you took up the tenancy. It's an "add on" that you didn't agree to.

ro05ter

In addition to court fees and interest, there are two items:
Initial legal costs = £60
Estimated solicitors costs = £50

ro05ter

waamo wrote: »

Is your tenancy agreement completely silent on the matter of parking? Did you get an allocated space?

If it is silent on the matter then clearly you didn't agree to having a permit when you took up the tenancy. It's an "add on" that you didn't agree to.

It is completely silent. It wasn't an allocated space, but we were allowed to park up to two vehicles in the car park, although now I see this wasn't expressly mentioned in the tenancy agreement.


It sounds like the potential silence in the tenancy agreement on parking doesn't preclude the primacy of contract argument?

The_Deep

Have you read this? They may be interfering with your leasehold right to peaceful enjoyment, possible an offence under the Landlord and Tenants Acts.

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

The lack of mention of a permit or a penalty for not displaying one in your AST could be to your advantage. Especially if your former landlord supports you against the scammer.

A judge might also wonder why this charge was being brought so long after the alleged BOC, and he/she would certainly be concerned about interest being charges. Also, the fact that they are asking for intest also merits a complaintto the SRA, the Solicitors regulatory body.

The fact that you did not receive an NTK and never had a chance to appeal would imo be very pursuavive in court,

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, also get your MP on board.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

beamerguy

ro05ter wrote: »

In addition to court fees and interest, there are two items:
Initial legal costs = £60
Estimated solicitors costs = £50

WHOOPS ?? BWL at the abuse of process claim again.

The courts have kicked out BWLegal for abuse of process

READ THIS PLEASE
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

PLEASE READ POST #14 ON THIS THREAD BY COUPON-MAD
Use the text in your defence IN FULL ... if this case goes to court

waamo

The contract you signed is the one you explicitly agreed to. Shoving up a few signs and telling you after you've agreed something isn't good.

What do you have in writing telling you that a permit is needed? When did you agree to it?

The_Deep

Indeed, you already had permission to park when the scammer entered the scene, they can therefore ofeer younothing you do not already have, therefore there can be no contract.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Elements+of+a+Contract

I believe that this case was unreasonably brought. if a judge does allow it to go forward, you should consider asking for punitive costs for unreasonable behaviour under CPR27.14(2)(g)