bwlegal and premier park exceeding maximum stay period

Coupon-mad

Don't say this:

  I am merely a human being who sometime forget or become overwhelmed under pressure. 

Add this as #14 onwards (and you need the JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO AND MAKE SURE THE WARWICK JUDGMENT YOU FIND IS THE PREMIER PARK ONE!):

14.  Judges in multiple court circuits are summarily striking out entire claims because by trying to claim a global sum of £160, this represents an abuse of process that ‘tainted’ each claim.  It is not in the public interest for a court to let such inflated parking charge claims proceed, get to hearing stage, then merely disallow £60 in a case-by-case basis, thus restricting and reserving the proper application of the relevant consumer rights legislation only for those relatively few consumers who are brave enough to continue to defend. 


15.  Three Judgments are appended (exhibits xx, xx and xx) which are Orders striking out these claims as an abuse of process at Skipton Court (Excel Parking Services Ltd) and Luton Court (Britannia Parking Ltd) both in February 2020, and Warwick Court.  This latter example involves the same Claimant as in my case, Premier Park Ltd, who - along with their legal advisers BW Legal - knew, or should have known by now, that parking charge claims which add £60 over and above the 'parking charge' itself are unlawful based upon case law and statute. 


15.1.  This Claimant's Particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, a cynical attempt to go behind the Beavis case paragraphs 98 193 and 198, all of which confirm that their Lordships held that the construction of a parking charge that is not unconscionable 'must' already include the operational costs of the regime. Unusually for this industry, it is worth noting that following their High Court case in Somerfield, and as was seen in Beavis, ParkingEye do not add false ‘debt letter costs/damages’ to their parking charges and as a consequence, their own claims have escaped any reports of being summarily struck out.


15.2.  There are no reports that Premier Park applied to set aside the Orders from Warwick Court (or anywhere else, if applicable) and they are put to strict proof - with a transcript of their application hearing, if they did so (successfully or unsuccessfully) at any court circuit.  I intend to question their witness about this specific issue at the hearing and why they are continuing with flagrant 'forum shopping' at the expense of the courts and beleaguered consumers.


16.  The 6-page Approved Judgment from Southampton Court is appended as exhibit xx which explains the reasoning used by the multiple court areas, whose Judges are of the view that entire parking charge claims are so tainted as to justify striking the cases out, rather than just disallowing £60 as double recovery, which fails to address the core abuse at source.   


17.   As well as the 2015 Supreme Court decision, there is further binding case law in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield at paragraph 419.  Whilst ParkingEye succeeded in securing damages from the Store for ending the contract early, the High Court held that ParkingEye had committed the tort of deceit when misleading consumers in their letters and in addition, the parking firm could not add a punitive £60 to the advertised 'parking charge':
 ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered...''

Bailii link for your evidence: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html#para419

Le_Kirk

6. As I walked into the branch, it become apparent to me that I would have a very busy day as workload was doubled in preparation for Christmas holidays and were short staffed.  It was the first time going in with my new, my old car was on permit system permanently; I completely forgot to update system with my new car due to workload. 

I don't know what you intended this to mean but it looks like you've missed out a word ........ or more.

FAIR.DEAL

Thank you coupon-mad, I have included your points, most appreciate your help. 
Le-Kirk, I know that was badly written paragraph, thank you for pointing out. I have amended it to:

6.     As I walked into the branch, it become apparent to me that we would have a very busy day due to the workload doubling because of the Christmas holidays.  Also, we were short staffed which meant more workload for me.  With so much work to do I completely forgot to update my car details on to the permit system.

My bundle contain in this order
WS
exhibits with cover sheet
supplementary WS
summary cost assessment

Is there anything missing?

Coupon-mad

I am really uncomfortable with you shouldering blame like this and admitting a failure:

With so much work to do I completely forgot to update my car details on to the permit system.

Why are you not wording it more along the lines that, say, the mechanism for exempting numberplates is cumbersome and routinely fails those employees who either change their car, use different cars or a car club vehicle, have a courtesy car.  There appears to be no mechanism to exempt a genuine staff memeber after the event, which is unfair and makes the system unfit for the purpose my employer and the landowner intended.  In this case with short staff numbers and the workload doubling due to it being the Christmas holidays, there was no time to think about updating a car numberplate and no way to exempt myself later, but I am permitted to park there and that agreement is with my employer, not with the third party parking firm who later sent an unexpected demand in the post.

FAIR.DEAL

FAIR.DEAL said:

Hi, just wanted to give you an update, Defence submitted, SARs received and bwlegal happy to proceed. Haven’t yet got DQ. Meanwhile I received another letter before claim from gladstones for parking opposite my house. My landlord should have cancelled that PCN, I’m very surprised by this letter.

Hi everyone, 

So, regarding 2nd PCN, I received claim forms today. However I sent SARs to WY parking enforcement on 5/2/2020 and I haven’t yet received any replies, not even automated email. I have sent it via email to info@wyparkingenforecement.co.uk
How to proceed now? Any advice please

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your second County Court Claim Form?

FAIR.DEAL

Hi Keith 
its 06/07/20

KeithP

FAIR.DEAL said:

Hi Keith 
its 06/07/20

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th July, you have until Monday 27th July to file an Acknowledgment of Service. If possible, do not file an AoS before 11th July, but otherwise, there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th August 2020 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence and then file a Defence, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

beamerguy

As WY parking enforcement failed the 30 day SAR, send them an email with a warning that if they fail to comply, you will complain to the ICO

As far as the claims, do you understand ABUSE OF PROCESS ?  BWLegal are getting their fake claims struck out all over the place and BWLegal, will keep failing whilst they add fake amounts.

UPDATE:  BWLegal/Premier Parking lose case in Bath. DJ Brown dismissed the case, advising BWLegal to tell their client that any further such cases will be struck out
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6085320/premier-park-ltd-ccbc/p1

nosferatu1001

Why did you not chase this SAR up?
For the 2nd - did you not get confirmation it was cancelled? DId yo unot check on the status online, to make sure?