bwlegal and premier park exceeding maximum stay period

Coupon-mad

Ah, I was going by your thread title.

Redx

FAIR.DEAL said:

Coupon-mad said:

YAY - ANOTHER PREMIER PARK / BW LEGAL ONE BITES THE DUST!

Well done!

Actually I haven't yet won the premier park.  I was facing two PCN, one at work and one residential opposite my driveway. 

So add the name of the losing PPC for clarity , seeing as it wasn't PP , thanks , and well done

Coupon-mad

If I were you I would try to find 30 minutes to listen in on the phone.

Coupon-mad

Do you think you can listen to the call even though you are at work? 

nosferatu1001

Pleas do the above if you can 
we really don't want an appeal, not just the effect on you but the wider timing issues

D_P_Dance

£95 is peanuts for the time/insult you have suffered.  Consider suing them for breaching your data rigts and breaching various housing acts, read this,

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

[Deleted User]

Thy have mixed up my case with the other case that was heard at the same time. The judge in my case referred to the Beavis case, which proved there was a contract. My argument was NOT based on FMOTL and never has been. I merely asked for an invoice according to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. I did not dispute that I owed the money, so there was no "controversy" and it shouldn't have reached court. I  previously won a case against "Parking Eye". The judge ruled the case dismissed until they provided an invoice, which they couldn't or refused to do so.
BWLegal referred to a case showing they did not have to declare VAT and therefore because I had asked for an invoice including VAT, they were arguing that point.
I said the BIlls of Exchange Act applies whether they want to include VAT or not, as a simplified invoice would do.
The judge chose to ignore my argument and went in favour of BWLegal saying that the Beavis case had already proven that a contract had been made.
Astounding that she was referring to something that I had not actually disputed, so her ruling was irrelevant to my argument.
I never disputed whether a contarct had been made.
I merely asked for an invoice if they claimed there was a contract.
So, I hope you can now see that my argument had nothing to do with FMOTL. I wouldn't rely on Common Law anyhow, It had it's successes 20 years ago but now they just ignore it.
BWLegal are now claiming they have beaten the excess £60 charger argument now by referring to my defeat in court.
So they have effectively claimed a success over the other cases' argument using my judgement in court and yet I had nothing to do with the other case.
Therefore, they are blatantly lying.
I get the feeling there is some serious corruption occurring.
Matt Semark-Jullien

Umkomaas

@MattJullien - I think you should start a new thread of your own, because while this one was about BWL, your case involved Britannia (if I recall correctly). 

Head it up something like - 'Concerns about BWL and the Semark-Jullien appeal case - my personal experience', which will grab the attention of all the forum's big-hitters than your post above on a very random thread. 

Open the new thread and just copy and paste what you've put above. 

[Deleted User]

OK. Will do. BWLegal are the legal team for Britannia Parking.