Advice county court claim, BW legal

Le_Kirk

Were_Doomed said:

The contract is so redacted that you can't even tell who it is with! Could be the freeholder - could be the MA. If it's with the MA, where's the provenance that this has been engaged with the authority of the freeholder?
PS - your keyboard looks faulty  

Not sure what you mean here.

Were_Doomed

Sorry - I was replying to nos. (Your post wasn't there when I was typing)  

Le_Kirk

Were_Doomed said:

Sorry - I was replying to nos. (Your post wasn't there when I was typing)  

Gotcha - no worries!

KeithP

Parties Link Parking Ltd

Who?

Castle

jvf1000 said:

Sorry!  I delete the name of the client ( who are the managing agents) In the copy that I posted so as not to identify them.  Contact is between Parties Link Parking Ltd and the client who name I have blanked out is the property address sinking fund Ltd, C/o the managing agents name. The second page is intact.
Hope that helps

But does it own the land?

Fruitcake

Delete the attachment NOW, then redact your personal data before posting it again. Your name, address, VRM, and PCN number are all showing on multiple pages.

Do NOT redact any of the scammer's or scamlicitors information, including the name of the legal/paralegal who produced the WS.

Coupon-mad

Their PCN only gives Reason 13- Parking without a valid permit.  Does anyone know where the contravention codes are obtained from and what they relate to?

They relate to nothing except what Link have invented. The numbers and codes have no meaning at all except to make you think they are somehow official.

 Are they also there to Police any residents that are not in their bay?

Yes and no.  That won't have been the stated intention, but it IS ALWAYS THE INTENTION to issue tickets to residents, because it's people like you who firms like Link extract their money from.  They don't tell Managing Agents that.   PPCs pretend they are there to 'deter trespassers' but if that were actually true, they'd make no money.

and if so technically is their PCN  defective ?

Doubt it.  What's 'defective' given this isn't a statutory penalty?  The PCN can say whatever they want it to say; it's a piece of paper.

Any judgements to favour me or any against my case?
The usual ones used in all residential cases (they are hosted with other transcripts, in the Parking Prankster's Case Law pages online) but I'd say Saeed v Plustrade is perhaps the most relevant of those, because that was about taking away the grant of a parking space and trying to charge for a replacement/not providing an alternative parking space.  So that transcript goes with your WS if you haven't already submitted yours.

If this is true (below) then this is the main thrust of your defence.  You and your friend/neighbour both had sole rights to your parking spaces and could certainly authorise each other to park, and 'sole rights' mean no-one else can argue with that.  You should have swapped permits to do so, but there is no 'legitimate interest'; in penalising you or the friend for permitted parking.  A PCN cannot be issued to punish a driver, it must have a commercial justification over and above punitive charging and the landowner cannot allow agents to cause a derogation from grant (see Saeed v Plustrade which I see BW Legal struggled to deal with at all, in para #55):

21.1            “I had parked at 21.18 hours in my friend’s space which is No. 224 with his consent and he was parked in mine.”

BW Legal's WS calls you 'she' then later on, 'his', and is a standard BW Legal template of prolix, so it is a bit rich that they accuse you of using an internet template (LOL...yet again...there is nothing wrong with a consumer seeking advice from the MSE parking fines forum and adapting an example defence).

#59 to #64 are answered by you by pointing to the High Court decision of HHJ Hegarty in ParkingEye v Somerfield, where para 419 dealt with the illegality and unrecoverability of trying to add £60 to an already doubled parking charge, which in itself, MUST cover the costs of the operation (i.e. that's why it is inflated to £100 in the first place - Beavis case 98, 193 and 198 confirm this).

The 'example letter' they have appended is meaningless because they admit in the WS that it is only an example letter but more importantly, they admit that Link did NOT issue new permits in 2017...so no such letter was issued, at all.  So why is it in evidence, to mislead the court into thinking residents received instructions that were never sent?  They've even mocked it up to say 'Bay 24' which would further mislead the court. The fact is, because Link DIDN'T re-issue permits (by their own admission) only the terms that applied when the original permits were issued would apply to you.  Who is to say that didn't allow residents to use each other's bays with authority from each other?  In any case, your lease allows you and the other resident 'sole rights' = therefore it's your call.

They talk about a 'partially redacted agreement between Cosmopolitan Court Services Charge Fund Ltd and the Claimant' in para 65, yet later in #40 they say it is with 'Remus'...is that a mistake by them or is the former the freeholder and the latter the MA?  

D_P_Dance

I do not know why these companies decry the use of the internet.  I suspect that most/all PHDs are obtained with the help of the internet 

Coupon-mad

jvf1000 said:

Posting contract between Link parking and managing agent, schedule1 is the property address which I have blanked out. In the recitals of page 2 kindly look at clause 3.1 and then refer to point 57 of the WS. Would appreciate your thoughts on this and if the two differ, as I read it, and what this implies.
cl  3.1 of the contract says sole rights but point 57of WS says non exclusive rights.

I don't think that matters - they are talking about different things.  #3.1. just means that no other rival parking firm can issue PCNs at the site.  Point #57 of the WS just means that the PPC has a bare licence to issue PCNs and no exclusive rights to 'occupy' the land.

Umkomaas

Any chance of a few paragraphs?  We have to read so many posts every day that headaches can easily set in, even with well spaced text.