LBC received from BW Legal

Castle

nosferatu1001 said:

Yep, sounds like a bad judge. A contract that isnt valid should be an instant loss. 

Given they have no authority - you can prove it - yo u might consider a claim aganist them. DPA breach

Indeed; there's no financial loss (such as non payment), and no economic loss (overstaying-i.e Beavis); so i can't see what legitimate Interest the PPC is defending.

nosferatu1001

I already said OP - DPA2018

on.wheels

nosferatu1001 said:

I already said OP - DPA2018

I wouldn't know where to start and I don't think I have the energy anymore. This took a lot and came down to the luck of the draw on the Judge. It's not consistent, in any way predictable or fair.

Umkomaas

on.wheels said:

nosferatu1001 said:

I already said OP - DPA2018

I wouldn't know where to start

Links below for information/inspiration. 

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/motorist-awarded-900-for-data.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/08/cp-plus-lose-data-protection-claim.html

Ralph-y

"nd I don't think I have the energy anymore"

I am not surprised you feel like that ...... I am sure I would .... given the poor judgment from the judge.

I would give it a day or so to reflect on matters .....

you may well feel the same .. but I all so think it could turn to anger ...

Ralph

on.wheels

Just to be clear, I (naively) provided my details to them myself in my initial appeal. Would there still be grounds for a claim for DPA breach?

nosferatu1001

You appealed a Notice to Driver?
You could go harassment. theyre claiming a debt that couldnt exist as their contract wasnt in place. 

on.wheels

No, I appealed the original PCN directly to KBT Cornwall, surrendering my details and that I was the driver. This was before I discovered this forum.

Would it not be hard proving their contract wasn’t in place considering the Judge just said it was ok and enforceable despite everything I pointed out?

beamerguy

This turned out to be an odd case, wish I had attended although with such a bad judge, doubtful anyone would have changed her mind.
To actually open the case by saying she had read the Salisbury case and she was not bound by it suggests that she has been told as there was no reason to mention Salisbury from the start.

The OP actually obeyed the terms and it rested on a fluttering ticket to which she did not understand. Once must assume that she lives a blessed life where nothing ever goes wrong ?

She contradicts herself by saying this is not abuse of process. She then says she will not allow the fake £60 ?
What did she think this was ?  

As far as BWLegal are concerned, they may be floating on air with a win. They did NOT get what they wanted. The fake £60 was thrown out and the interest they charged was denied because the judge said interest rates are so low she is not going to allow it.   This can be used in other cases where interest is added

Given that Bristol is probably part of the area judge who ruled on Salisbury and that judges are going to be scared within the area about abuse of process, as coupon-mad has said, we should now reference the £60 as DOUBLE RECOVERY which a judge must consider as it is a ruling of the county court and not allowed.
It will then be up to the judge what words they want to use to dismiss further fake claims
This will have no bearing as to the statement of the appeals judge and will make it "much ado about nothing"

I think we all agree that the judge in Bristol had her hands tied, she has to live with that now

DOUBLE RECOVERY will now void the decision of the appeal judge and be very helpful for a judge to make the correct decision that he or she may not have made because of Salisbury.
DOUBLE RECOVERY can still be classed as abuse of process simply because it abuses the court

Coupon-mad

To the OP, I have to say you need to pay it and move on.  There are no grounds I can see for appeal nor a claim.  The Judge decided the signs were adequate and accepted what was a dog's breakfast of a landowner contract, but she considered them both and it was in her gift to come to the conclusions she did and no appeal Judge would likely go behind those findings. 

She didn't err in law. People can't appeal just because they disagree with the Judge.

It would be madness to claim under the DPA when you lost this case.  Also, claiming under the DPA takes a fair bit of legal argument.

Please make sure you stick around and make comments on the Government consultation when the new draft Code of Practice is published (imminent).  Come back and check next week if we have a thread about it and please read the new draft Code of practice carefully and object to anything in it that is not robust enough.  It is designed to rein in this rogue industry so make sure your voice is heard.