PCN escalated to Court proceedings **EDIT - I WON**

Littlewadie

nosferatu1001 said:

What reason did they give to exclude it?

Upon receipt of the Defendant's email, the Claimant has deemed it prudent to respond to the same. We are therefore responding simply to set out the Claimant’s position regarding this new evidence submitted:

 

1.       It is submitted that without the Claimant’s permission, the Defendant requires the Court’s permission to amend his statement of case pursuant to CPR 17, which has not been granted. It is therefore submitted that this additional evidence should be disregarded.

 

2.       In so far as the court is willing to consider this new evidence, the Claimant has confirmed that PPLegal is the Debt Recovery Company who carry out debt recovery action if payment is not received on outstanding PCNs.

 

3.       PPLegal were erroneously instructed on this matter.

 

4.        The Claimant confirms that the PCN was originally referred to ZZPS (another debt recovery company) to recover the outstanding balance. Upon unsuccessfully doing so, the matter was referred to BW Legal to commence legal proceedings. Due to the PCN not being flagged in the correct status of the Claimant’s (Premier Park) system, the PCN was erroneously referred to PPLegal on 03 March 2020. The Defendant emailed PPLegal on 11 May 2020 (after having received 3x debt recovery letters) and the response detailed in the Defendant’s email was provided in response to her email.

 

5.       For clarification purposes, PPLegal were instructed to commence pre- debt recovery action in error. As such, a detailed response was provided to the Defendant to confirm the same, and PPLegal closed their file accordingly. The Defendant has since provided correspondence which confirms the same.

 

6.       Please note, the Claimant has not discontinued the legal proceedings issued nor will not be doing so. Despite the Defendant’s allegation, it was the Defendant’s responsibility to ensure she complied with the clearly displayed Terms and Conditions, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]. The Defendant exceeded the maximum stay permitted which she does not deny. The breach is therefore undisputable, whilst it is clear that the Defendant is simply attempting to avoid liability for the PCN.

nosferatu1001

Ah, so they tried to claim you are altering your statement of case - you werent, you were adding evidence, not changing your defence

6 is hilarious. 

Littlewadie

nosferatu1001 said:

Ah, so they tried to claim you are altering your statement of case - you werent, you were adding evidence, not changing your defence

6 is hilarious. 

Yes they seem stuck on me not sticking to the time limit and ignoring all the evidence I provided, even down to the fact they apparently do not need to give any extra time to disabled drivers as everyone is treated the same, I even sent, highlighted and underlined the BPA Code Of Practice, stating that they actually do have to allow extra time.

beamerguy

Remember .... you still have ABUSE OF PROCESS of the fake £60 BWLegal are scamming you with.
Reading through this, it is so clear that BWLegal are well out of their depth on this
The court allowing you to add (not change) your evidence must indicate that their interest is much more than just a parking ticket. After you have won and claimed your costs, you must send the complete case file to the SRA

Coupon-mad

Littlewadie said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Ah, so they tried to claim you are altering your statement of case - you werent, you were adding evidence, not changing your defence

6 is hilarious. 

Yes they seem stuck on me not sticking to the time limit and ignoring all the evidence I provided, even down to the fact they apparently do not need to give any extra time to disabled drivers as everyone is treated the same, I even sent, highlighted and underlined the BPA Code Of Practice, stating that they actually do have to allow extra time.

And of course that the BPA CoP in 2014 said operators MUST NOT issue PCNs to vehicles displaying a Blue Badge.  The fact that they use a cheap 'remote camera' system rather than agents on foot checking the disabled bays, is no justification for ignoring the rights of BB holders to more time, not just to get to a machine but more allowed 'parking' time too. 

As per the Norwich case:
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/disabled-campaigners-claim-norwich-parking-victory-1-777815

Littlewadie

Coupon-mad said:

Littlewadie said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Ah, so they tried to claim you are altering your statement of case - you werent, you were adding evidence, not changing your defence

6 is hilarious. 

Yes they seem stuck on me not sticking to the time limit and ignoring all the evidence I provided, even down to the fact they apparently do not need to give any extra time to disabled drivers as everyone is treated the same, I even sent, highlighted and underlined the BPA Code Of Practice, stating that they actually do have to allow extra time.

And of course that the BPA CoP in 2014 said operators MUST NOT issue PCNs to vehicles displaying a Blue Badge.  The fact that they use a cheap 'remote camera' system rather than agents on foot checking the disabled bays, is no justification for ignoring the rights of BB holders to more time, not just to get to a machine but more allowed 'parking' time too. 

As per the Norwich case:
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/disabled-campaigners-claim-norwich-parking-victory-1-777815

Yes that too, I mean they have everything in my WS, all the ways they have broke the law, BPA Code Of Practice, Abuse of process, Equality Act, and so on, and so on. Yet they are still going ahead, glad the Judge has allowed me to add it for consideration, I am not sure what the hearing will cover but I will need my phone fully charged for the 2 1/2 hour hearing, that's for sure.
Since putting in my witness statement, I have been given a copy of a POPLA assessment and decision dated from 2016 in relation to said car park, stating that they failed to meet the requirements of the BPA Code Of Practice in regards to signage, although the decision was in 2016, the PCN was from around the same time as mine.
Also a fellow motorist contacted me for help with the same issue in the same car park from the same time, I gave him everything I could help him with and he had a telephone hearing earlier this month and won his case, again on incorrect signage, so hopefully this is looking good for me.

Littlewadie

Great article by the way Coupon-mad

beamerguy

The knowledge of the code of practice, both BPA and IPC, seems to be a complete mystery to BWLegal ?

They actually think that their legal authority to add £60 is given by the code of practice, and both the BPA and IPC go against the law telling their members they can add fake amounts .?
And, as they cannot prove that a contract exists for the motorist to be bound by the codes of practice, such a feeble reason can only lead to abuse of process ..... as keeps happening

BWLegal are members of the BPA so they should ask the BPA what contract is the motorist bound by and why the BPA break the law with their code. Doubt the BPA can explain ?

And, we will ensure this continues until they realise their flaw

Coupon-mad

Littlewadie said:

Great article by the way Coupon-mad

It can be included in your evidence with a supplementary WS, along with that POPLA appeal win. 

Why not ping that by email to the scammers as well as an updated summary costs assessment (final version including the August hearing) adding in the time taken off work (or is loss of leave) for your husband to look after the children for half a day while you have to shut yourself in a quiet room for 2.5 hours to fight a scam by phone.

Littlewadie

Coupon-mad said:

Littlewadie said:

Great article by the way Coupon-mad

It can be included in your evidence with a supplementary WS, along with that POPLA appeal win. 

Why not ping that by email to the scammers as well as an updated summary costs assessment (final version including the August hearing) adding in the time taken off work (or is loss of leave) for your husband to look after the children for half a day while you have to shut yourself in a quiet room for 2.5 hours to fight a scam by phone.

Ok, I will look into this, I am going to see what I can find, to add to my paperwork bundle.