Premier Park PCN at Fitness First

cornilleou

...so I'm sure you can imagine my surprise on receiving this within a few hours!!!
=====================================================================

Subject: RE: (V) Response to Letter of Claim

 

Good Afternoon

 

Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

 

Your position, in that the individual usually acts with due dilligence, is not relevant to the fact that the registration was not validated on the day in question.

 

It is required to enter the registration on each trip and therefore failing to do this is a contravention and may result in a Parking Charge notice.

 

Given this, we would ask you to make a payment proposal for the full balance that remains due and owing.

 

Should you have any further queries please contact our office on 0113 487 0432.

 

We appreciate that it may not always be convenient to call us. Should you wish to review or manage your account online, you can do this by visiting our Customer Portal at https://Customerportal.bwlegal.co.uk  and setting up your account. Our Customer Portal provides you with the functionality to speak to us by webchat, raise a query, complete your income and expenditure, make a payment or set up an affordable payment arrangement at your convenience.

 

Kind Regards,

 

bwlegal

====================================================================

Interesting how they made no attempt to explain the £60.

Apparently, they'll be issuing their claim in April....

Coupon-mad

Subject: RE: (V) Response to Letter of Claim

 

Good Afternoon

Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

Your position, in that ''It is required to enter the registration on each trip and therefore failing to do this is a contravention and may result in a Parking Charge notice'' is not relevant to the fact that the registration was validated on the day in question.  I don't think you read my email.  Your client's system failed, not the driver.

Given this, I would ask you to cease and desist with your pathetic demands that I ''make a payment proposal for the full balance that remains due and owing.''  And while you are about it, why not re-read the attached transcript of the Southampton case that your firm spent £480 on, plus wasted barrister fees?  Is that the reason why you carefully side-stepped my question about the false £60 your client has added?  

I remind you that your first duty is to the court so I ask again, what is the £60 for?  Perhaps you believe you can make a better fist of it than your barrister did, but it would also be pertinent to ask why BW Legal didn't appeal the judgment, yet you continue to file false and exaggerated claims.  This appears to be what is known in litigation as 'forum shopping'.

Regards, 

You 

Appendix - Southampton Approved Judgement (6 page PDF).

cornilleou

Coupon-mad said:

Subject: RE: (V) Response to Letter of Claim

 

Good Afternoon

Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

Your position, in that ''It is required to enter the registration on each trip and therefore failing to do this is a contravention and may result in a Parking Charge notice'' is not relevant to the fact that the registration was validated on the day in question.  I don't think you read my email.  Your client's system failed, not the driver.

Given this, I would ask you to cease and desist with your pathetic demands that I ''make a payment proposal for the full balance that remains due and owing.''  And while you are about it, why not re-read the attached transcript of the Southampton case that your firm spent £480 on, plus wasted barrister fees?  Is that the reason why you carefully side-stepped my question about the false £60 your client has added?  

I remind you that your first duty is to the court so I ask again, what is the £60 for?  Perhaps you believe you can make a better fist of it than your barrister did, but it would also be pertinent to ask why BW Legal didn't appeal the judgment, yet you continue to file false and exaggerated claims.  This appears to be what is known in litigation as 'forum shopping'.

Regards, 

You 

Appendix - Southampton Approved Judgement (6 page PDF).

Wow! I was just going to wait for battle to commence and not bother responding but that's brilliant! Thank you! I'll let you know how I get on.

Coupon-mad

It will also help later because no Judge wants to think theirs is the 'easy court' that such scam firms are shopping for.

cornilleou

...sooooo, I couldn't resist adding a few embellishments of my own and sent: -

Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

Your deliberate mis-reading of my email will not aid you in court.

Your position, in that ''It is required to enter the registration on each trip and therefore failing to do this is a contravention and may result in a Parking Charge notice'' is not relevant to the fact that the registration was validated on the day in question.  Your client's system (which is clearly not fit for the purpose you are attempting to use it for) failed, not the driver.

Your attempt to side-step my question about the false £60 added by your client has been particularly noted so perhaps you need to re-read the attached transcript of the Southampton case that your firm spent £480 on, plus wasted barrister fees? 

I remind you that your first duty is to the court so I ask again, what is the £60 for?  Perhaps you believe you can make a better fist of it than your barrister did, but it would also be pertinent to ask why BW Legal didn't appeal the judgment, yet you continue to file false and exaggerated claims.  This appears to be what is known in litigation as 'forum shopping'.

Lastly, I would ask you to cease and desist with your pointless demands that I ''make a payment proposal for the full balance that remains due and owing.''. It is neither due nor owing!

Yours sincerely

XXXX XXXXXXX

Appendix - Southampton Approved Judgement (6 page PDF).

cornilleou

....they had to think a bit more about their response this time so a day and a bit later....
================================================================================================

Subject: RE: (V) Response to Letter of Claim

 

Good Morning

 

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

 

Please be advised each case is treated individually and just because a judge dismissed one case, this does not mean that all cases were dismissed.

 

You have failed to adhere to the terms and conditions set out at the car park and enter your vehicle registration when paying you were correctly issued a parking charge notice.

 

Please note, should you continue to dispute this matter, please seek your own independent legal advice.

 

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact our office on 0113 487 0432.

 

Kind Regards,

 

bwlegal

================================================================================================
...at least they've stopped the silly payment proposal demands! 

cornilleou

Funnily enough someone seems to have forgotten to tell PP Legal their services are no longer required! I've just received another demand from them for payment of the original £170!

Coupon-mad

They keep doing this, and the good thing is, if both PP Legal and BW Legal file a claim then you can have their guts for garters, to coin a phrase!

cornilleou

Thought I let the landowner know I hadn't forgotten about their part in this...
==================================================================================

Hello xxxx, I'm afraid I find I now need to follow up our earlier exchange of mails as your car park management partners Premier Park are now threatening to take me to court imminently.

 

Just in case you need a reminder:-

 

The driver is a member of the Solihull branch of Fitness First gym and having to their best endeavours entered the registration number at the terminal located within the gym is entitled to free parking whilst at the gym. Whilst not entering into any contract but in recognition of the landowners reasonable requirement to manage the use of their land, the car registration has been regularly registered by the driver on multiple previous occasions and the driver maintains that the registration was entered on this occasion. I have attempted to explain that as far as the driver is concerned the terminal must be at fault and provided proof of attendance at Fitness First at the time in question. However, they continue to harass for payment even though they do not provide receipts which would allow drivers to prove entry and have confirmed using their own records that the registration number is regularly recorded at this gym. This kind of disingenuous behaviour, attempting to disadvantage genuine consumers, has previously been found under the scrutiny of the courts to be unacceptable and I am surprised your company is being party to it.

 

To save all concerned the wasted time, acrimony and negative reputational impact, I strongly suggest that you contact Premier Park to arrange for this parking charge to be cancelled and notify me that this case is closed.

 

Should your legal  team claim an inability to act I should point out that signing a contract where your hands are tied behind your back stopping you from being able to intervene for genuine patrons, staff, students, taxis, delivery vehicles and even disabled visitors, puts you in a precarious position.  Not only does it leave a very bad taste in the mouth for victims of this regime who are having to fight court claims or pay an extortionate sum, it leaves Blue Ice Plaza jointly and severally liable in cases where the PCN is clearly unfair, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 'grey list of unfair terms' and where the charge is excessive and therefore fails to match the construction and commercial justification that saved the £85 parking charge in the leading Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.  Far from legitimising all private parking charges, that 2015 case in fact sets a benchmark that Premier Park woefully fail to meet in every respect, from signage terms to legitimate interest, and similar BW Legal exaggerated claims for parking firms are being struck out by Judges up and down the Country.

 

Regards xxxx xxxxxxx

============================================================================

cornilleou

They took a surprisingly long time to come back with this gem......
=====================================================================================

Hi xxxxx

 

Unfortunately as you didn’t pay or attempt to pay the reduced amount offered  there is very little I can do.

 

Kind Regards,

 

xxxx