PPS Parking Fine, BW Legal Letters

KeithP

You haven't mentioned it, but have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service yet?

I said earlier...

KeithP said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st October, you have until Monday 9th November to file an Acknowledgment of Service.

Vowla

Yes sorry KeithP, I have filed it, on the 5th day after the claim was received. 

Vowla

Hi all, can somebody comment on my latest defence draft please? It will be added into the template defence provided.

My case relies on evidence from the landowner that the PPC acted outside of its jurisdiction in ticketing the vehicle. The land is also subject to railway byelaws to the best of everyones knowledge. As railway staff we are covered by the byelaws when in the course of our duties. The TOC, my employer, manages the land and as an authorised person gave permission for staff to park in the area of the alleged offence.  And like most there is highly questionable signage erected, unclear, unlit and likely illegally erected. I've added my own section regarding the signage because I was uncomfortable adding to the section in the template given.  Thanks.

The Defendant denies the claimant has jurisdiction over the exact piece of land that the alleged offence took place on, consultation with the land owner (Network Rail) proves the claimant acted outside of their contractually agreed area and should not have ticketed the vehicle in the area it was parked. Exeter St Davids Station, it’s lands and the lands of the Traction Maintenance Depot are managed by the TOC Great Western Railway (GWR), themselves authorised persons who gave permission to park on the land in question to it’s members of staff of which the Defendant is. This piece of land is not the land leased to the PPC. In requesting the vehicle owners data the PPC has shown complete disregard for the laws surrounding access to personal data.

The land on which the alleged offence takes places is subject to Railway Byelaws, specifically Sections 14 of which no Byelaw offence was committed. The claimant, in the course of his duties during the time of the alleged offence, is an authorised person on the railways and thus covered by Section 24.6 of The Railway Byelaws. ‘Breaches by authorised persons: An authorised person acting in the course of his duties shall not be liable for breach of any of the Byelaws numbered 2, 4(2), 6(3) and 6(5), 7, 9, 10, 11(1), 13, 14, 15, 16(6), 17, 18, 19 and 20(1). The PPC does not have the jurisdiction to claim for a Byelaw offence and the time under which to do so has long passed. This itself is another breach of the Defendants personal data as it was held longer than was absolutely necessary. 

The Defendant Denies any contractual agreement was ever created between the PPC and himself. The signage is unclear, unlit and the area in question cannot reasonably be believed to be a car park as no marked parking bays exist and is clearly derelict wasteland. Further more the signage that is in place appears to have been erected illegally with no planning permission to erect the signage able to be found. A contract cannot be formed as it was incapable of being formed without an illegal act (the erection of un-consented signs which the PPC relies on as having made a contractual offer). 

nosferatu1001

Not jurisdiction. Authority. 

Coupon-mad

Looks good apart from typos/grammar issues and the use 'offence' (it's not) and 'TOC' and 'PPC' without explaining it:

The Defendant denies the claimant has jurisdiction over the exact piece of land that where the alleged offence parking event took place. on,   Consultation with the land owner (Network Rail) proves the claimant acted outside of their contractually agreed area and should not have ticketed the vehicle in the area it was parked.  Land belonging to Exeter St Davids Station, it’s lands and the lands of the Traction Maintenance Depot are is managed by and remains wholly under the control of the TOC Great Western Railway (GWR), themselves authorised persons who gave permission to park on the land in question to it’s members of staff of which including the Defendant.  is. This piece of land is not the land operated by this Claimant.  leased to the PPC. In requesting the vehicle owner's data from the DVLA, the Claimant  the PPC has shown complete disregard for the GDPR, DPA 2018 and the DVLA KADOE rules which forbids a private parking company from obtaining registered keeper data without 'reasonable cause' and also requires landowner authority.  laws surrounding access to personal data.

The land on which the alleged parking event occurred offence takes places is subject to Railway Byelaws, specifically Sections  Byelaw 14 of which no Byelaw and not only was no offence was committed but the Claimant has not issued a byelaws penalty, nor does it have the required  jurisdiction.

Vowla

Thank you for the help! I shall add the corrections and just follow the process! 

Vowla

Hi, just a quick one. I've had another letter from BW Legal today saying they haven't heard a response from me and if they haven't by the end of the month they, BW Legal, will enter a CCJ against me. I've gone on my MCOL page and it states that the court have received my AOS and my defence. According to the forum at this point I don't have to send anything to BW Legal until I get the N180 form of which I should email so I have proof it was sent? So I take it this is just another rubbish letter where they are trying to breach due process?

Coupon-mad

Send them an email with a screenshot of your MCOL page and tell them to stop harassing consumers and realise that the CCBC has delays.

nosferatu1001

Yep.  You won't get a DQ until the C confirms they want the claim to go ahead 

contact them as told. 

Le_Kirk

Vowla said:

Hi, just a quick one. I've had another letter from BW Legal today saying they haven't heard a response from me and if they haven't by the end of the month they, BW Legal, will enter a CCJ against me. I've gone on my MCOL page and it states that the court have received my AOS and my defence. According to the forum at this point I don't have to send anything to BW Legal until I get the N180 form of which I should email so I have proof it was sent? So I take it this is just another rubbish letter where they are trying to breach due process?

You do know that they cannot "enter a CCJ against you"?  That is for the court/judge to decide.  This is typical BW rubbish meant to frighten the unwary.  If I thought it would do any good I would advise a complaint to the SRA but at best it will be a slap on wrist for BW, who will claim they are only following their clients instructions.  They should be advising their client not to make unsupportable statements.