BW Legal LoC

not_the_messiah

Hi everyone!

I have been reading threads on here for a while now in anticipation of me receiving something from these people! As the title suggests, I have just received my Letter of Claim and I am planning to send a SAR and 'on hold' request to the relevant parties (similar to this thread).

Before I do that however, I just wanted to check that this is the best course of action as I've not seen an example of my particular 'violation' on the forums. The driver parking in a bay that is reserved for a holiday cottage (don't ask, we've had words):
IMAGE

We had a valid ticket at the time the 'offence' was spotted, but I am not sure if this is a valid defence or not!

Thanks in advance,

not_the_messiah

KeithP

Are there any other signs there apart from the one you have shown us?

Anything with parking terms and conditions on?

not_the_messiah

KeithP wrote: »

Are there any other signs there apart from the one you have shown us?

Anything with parking terms and conditions on?

Yes - two of these:
IMAGE

KeithP

That sign says Terms and Conditions apply, but it doesn't appear to state what those terms are. Are those terms stated anywhere?

not_the_messiah

KeithP wrote: »

That sign says Terms and Conditions apply, but it doesn't appear to state what those terms are. Are those terms stated anywhere?

Gawd Bless Google Maps! You can see the car park in question here: Car Park

Additional signs from the above link:
IMAGES

not_the_messiah

Just a polite bump for comments - thanks in advance for any help received.

beamerguy

BWLegal will have added a fake £60 in their claim ???

The courts have kicked out BWLegal for ABUSE OF PROCESS

Read this ...
Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

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

not_the_messiah

beamerguy wrote: »

BWLegal will have added a fake £60 in their claim ???

The courts have kicked out BWLegal for ABUSE OF PROCESS

Read this ...
Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6014081

Thanks!

So the £60 referred to is the £60 in this?

The Balance Due includes the £100 PCN charge plus Our Client's
initial legal costs of £60.00, which are detailed in the car park or sinage terms and conditions.

beamerguy

not_the_messiah wrote: »

Thanks!

So the £60 referred to is the £60 in this?

YES, nasty little scam is it not ????

Not only abuse of process against POFA2012 but also abuse of process of the courts own rules about double recovery

not_the_messiah

beamerguy wrote: »

YES, nasty little scam is it not ????

Not only abuse of process against POFA2012 but also abuse of process of the courts own rules about double recovery

Why the rotten sh1ts!

Thanks - i'll have a read of that thread :beer:

didgeridoooo

What DIRE signage in that car park! Good old ArmTrick Security Services. Terrible!


And, even though they can't charge that extra £60 by POFA2012 (I assume they have not identified the driver?) - It's still worth (in my view) showing that the £60 was NOT mentioned ANYWHERE. Two bites of cherry. Judge should throw it out for double recovery, or at least that fake charge, but if not, the lack of any mention of it should help.



In my case, BWL said on the Claim Form "The Claimant also claims £60 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions". !!!!!!! hilarious - The PCN isn't a new contract, and even if it was, where and how did I agree to contract upon it's terms?! Duh. Basically, it's foolish to think these monkeys actions through, they don't, so why should we? Just stick to the rules (POFA hopefully) and you should dump this where it belongs, in the bog.