BW Legal / Premier Park £1,300 debt / Letter of Claim

Coupon-mad

Regards their fake £50 or £60, they are chasing 10 PCNs at £100 each, so BW Legal 'charge' would be £300.

No, it wouldn't, because the £60 is not described as a BW Legal charge.

It's described as damages and time taken on the case and costs of the letters, which is easily knocked into touch by a clued up defendant citing paras 98 and 198 of Beavis.

Even if their evidence seems better than some PCNs, you could still successfully save yourself £60 per PCN even if you lost. You have to argue against each one, and argue against the fake added sixty quid that is not recoverable.

It's a no brainer to defend and attend, and quite possibly they'll muck it up.

Kenny_Powers

I'll add some photos here later when I have more time.

But first dealing with the comment above, I'm still unclear as to the fake £60 charge. I cannot see a breakdown of the PCN of its component parts. The PCN on the signage states £100. I have 10 PCNs against me = £1,000. BW Legal are chasing me for £1,300, so is that a £30 fake charge for each PCN?

Looking at paras 98 and 198 of Beavis, it relates to a ticketed shopping car park. How do these deal with the fake charge? Not being a legal expert it's not clear to me. How can I connect directly what is mentioned in those paras to my case and how could I use them? I have included the paragraphs directly below for reference. I have also added para 99 which appears relevant. However para 199 states the fee is neither improper or excessive. So my question is, could I then defend on these grounds as detailed in these paragraphs of Beavis to reduce the amount I would pay? What would I say exactly in my defence, is there an example of this somewhere?

PARAGRAPH 98
98. Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the
retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars. This was to be achieved by deterring commuters or other long-stay
motorists from occupying parking spaces for long periods or engaging in other inconsiderate parking practices, thereby reducing the space available to other members of the public, in particular the customers of the retail outlets. The other
purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services, without which those services would not be available. These two objectives appear to us to be perfectly reasonable in themselves. Subject to the penalty rule and the Regulations, the imposition of a charge to deter overstayers is a reasonable mode of achieving them. Indeed, once it is resolved to allow up to two hours free parking, it is difficult to see how else those objectives could be achieved.

I have added para 99, which seems relevant:

PARAGRAPH 99
99. In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The scheme in operation here (and in many similar car parks) is that the landowner authorises ParkingEye to control
access to the car park and to impose the agreed charges, with a view to managing the car park in the interests of the retail outlets, their customers and the public at large. That is an interest of the landowners because (i) they receive a fee from
ParkingEye for the right to operate the scheme, and (ii) they lease sites on the retail park to various retailers, for whom the availability of customer parking was a valuable facility. It is an interest of ParkingEye, because it sells its services as the
managers of such schemes and meets the costs of doing so from charges for breach of the terms (and if the scheme was run directly by the landowners, the analysis
would be no different). As we have pointed out, deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not
satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract. Mr Butcher QC, who appeared for the Consumers’ Association (interveners), submitted that
because ParkingEye was the contracting party its interest was the only one which could count. For the reason which we have given, ParkingEye had a sufficient interest even if that submission be correct. But in our opinion it is not correct. The penal character of this scheme cannot depend on whether the landowner operates it himself or employs a contractor like ParkingEye to operate it. The motorist would not know or care what if any interest the operator has in the land, or what relationship it has with the landowner if it has no interest. This conclusion is reinforced when one bears in mind that the question whether a contractual provision is a penalty turns
on the construction of the contract, which cannot normally turn on facts not recorded in the contract unless they are known, or could reasonably be known, to both parties.

PARAGRAPH 198
198. The £85 charge for overstaying is certainly set at a level which no ordinary customer (as opposed to someone deliberately overstaying for days) would wish to
incur. It has to have, and is intended to have, a deterrent element, as Judge Moloney QC recognised in his careful judgment (para 7.14). Otherwise, a significant number
of customers could all too easily decide to overstay, limiting the shopping possibilities of other customers. Turnover of customers is obviously important for a retail park. A scheme which imposed a much smaller charge for short overstaying
or operated with fine gradations according to the period of overstay would be likely to be unenforceable and ineffective. It would also not be worth taking customers to court for a few pounds. But the scheme is transparent, and the risk which the
customer accepts is clear. The fact that, human nature being what it is, some customers under-estimate or over-look the time required or taken for shopping, a break or whatever else they may do, does not make the scheme excessive or
unconscionable. The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level
enabling ParkingEye to make a profit. Unless BAPF was itself prepared to pay ParkingEye, which would have meant, in effect, that it was subsidising customers to park on its own site, this was inevitable. If BAPF had attempted itself to operate such a scheme, one may speculate that the charge might even have had to be set at a higher level to cover its costs without profit, since ParkingEye is evidently a
specialist in the area.

Thanks

Kenny_Powers

Here is the signage and location in the car park. One of two

Kenny_Powers

Clearer image of the sign

Coupon-mad

Looking at paras 98 and 198 of Beavis, it relates to a ticketed shopping car park. How do these deal with the fake charge?

Para 98 and 198 of ParkingEye v Beavis make it clear that the parking charge already more then covers the costs of the operation, including the 'alleged debt' letter chain.

Hence, in any parking charge case, a PPC cannot add MORE money to 'cover the costs or losses/damages' because this business model has no such costs outstanding and results in a very high profit margin over and above the costs of the operation.

They can't claim twice for the same thing.

Paras 98 & 198 tell you that, I'm amazed people can't find these nuggets in there:

98. ''...The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''

Whereas para 99 does not help you at all as the supposedly wise and unbiased (sigh...) Supreme Court elderlies blather on in praise of parking schemes and the 'service' they offer and how damn wonderful the wrinkly Judges have been persuaded that they are!

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Whereas para 99 does not help you at all as the supposedly wise and unbiased (sigh...) Supreme Court elderlies blather on in praise of parking schemes and the 'service' they offer and how damn wonderful the wrinkly Judges have been persuaded that they are!

Classic. :rotfl:

The_Slithy_Tove

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Whereas para 99 does not help you at all as the supposedly wise and unbiased (sigh...) Supreme Court elderlies blather on in praise of parking schemes and the 'service' they offer and how damn wonderful the wrinkly Judges have been persuaded that they are!

I thought the Supreme Court judges were now our heroes, depending on your political point of view.

beamerguy

Kenny_Powers ..... the sign you show above which has tiny letters and says "they may add additional costs" ??

The word MAY cannot remotely form a contract as there is no indication of what amount that would be

The fake £60 normally starts with the debt collector such as DRP who are a nonsense at the best of times who clearly think they are above the law. DRP for example state they will add the amount if the PPC wants this

One assumes when the debt collector fails they pass it back to the PPC with the fake amount added on.
Then the PPC wrongly thinks that they can pass the inflated claim to a legal.
The question is, does a legal accept an inflated claim or if the PPC passes the basic amount, say £100, to a legal or is it the legal who inflates the claim ???

If it is the PPC who passes an inflated claim to a legal then not only
is the PPC breaking the law POPLA2012 but so is the legal

Not only are they ignoring POFA2012 and the courts own ruling about double recovery, they are ignoring the Supreme court

198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''
Thanks to coupon-mad above

So, whilst PPC's, debt collectors and legals blather on about ParkingEye v Beavis as a precedent they forget or ignore what the Supreme court said above

The Supreme court statement has only one interpretation ....

The price of the ticket includes the costs of operation
In a nutshell, this cannot include any further charges added on at a whim

This is probably why ParkingEye do not add on fake charges because they understand the ruling of their own court case

Kenny_Powers

Ok, so if I understand this correctly, I can use the evidence contained in the Beavis paragraphs to have any extra costs wiped off.

I assume I'll still be liable for the full £100 per PCN as stated on the sign?

So for the 2 PCNs where I did not display a valid permit, can I rely on the lease and tennancy agreement which states a permit was not necessary? In fact there is no mention of requiring a permit in these documents.

Does anyone know of any cases I could make reference to that would help me have these PCNs dismissed based on the argument that the lease etc overrides the details on the sign (the contract)?

I'd be grateful for any input, then I can begin drafting the evidence document. Do I need to now tell BW Legal that I want this tested in court? Thanks

The_Deep

I am pretty sure that the 3% charge they add on for card payments is illegal,

I assume I'll still be liable for the full £100 per PCN as stated on the sign

Only if you lose, which in "own space" claims is unlikely.

Does anyone know of any cases I could make reference to that would help me have these PCNs dismissed based on the argument that the lease etc overrides the details on the sign (the contract)?

There are hundreds, look on here, peppipoo, Legal Beagles, The Notomob, Honest John, CAG to name a few. Also search under "primacy of Contract".

You need to get a grip on this, you should not be asking these questions, you should be looking for this stuff yourself.

Have you complained to your MP?