Premier Parking Solutions BW Legal - Pay within 10min

adam_steiner

Thanking you! Appreciated (really do!)

The_Slithy_Tove

The nonsense from both PPS and BWL is incredible. It's like trying to argue with a mad person, where the story changes all the time, and you get frustrated and start going mad yourself.

The signage make no sense at all, even though it says it's a contractural agreement. There are tariffs which you agree to pay, and are marked. Then it talks about a £100 parking charge, but doesn't tell you when such a charge becomes payable, rather than the standard tariff. In any case, you conformed to the terms (#11) in that you paid before you left (I think that term will be their undoing if they are claiming some unwritten period within which you actually should pay).

PPS said first that they aren't claiming for breach of contract, but BWL say that they are.

And as already stated, the rubbish from BWL has two different justifications for the additional £60, which won't go down well with a judge, especially as neither is allowed.

Crazy!

Coupon-mad

That template is truly ancient. There's a reason why it is not linked in the NEWBIES thread.

Please don't use a 2017 archive piece of waffle that they have seen so many times that they will laugh.

adam_steiner

@coupon-mad can you kindly point me to a good example - I've probably scoured the newbies thread 3 times. Is this better one better? hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5921595&highlight=lbc+response+bwlegal#6

Cheers

Coupon-mad

Could you just stop looking for a template. The NEWBIES thread does not give one because we don't want you to look for one or send one!

adam_steiner

@Coupon-mad apologies, I was perhaps a bit keen for guidance.
I've since received a response back from the LBC and SAR - what jumps out is:

1. They're pursuing as Registered Keeper, but they're not relying on Schedule 4 of PoFA
2. They stated the vehicle was observed by a parking attendant... no it wasn't as it was ANPR, no attendants on-site
3. They allege its a breach of contract, even though the claimant is pursuing due to particular contractual term
4. I asked them for specific terms that were breached as displayed on-site - they simply said you entered a contract and it was breached and thus analysis isn't necessary (lol)

At this point do I just respond and say I deny any debt (ignoring their forms), and as part of that does it make sense to call these items and ask them to explain themselves for later use in court?
Also do I need to explain why I dispute the debt or best to leave that blank?
Thanks.

Coupon-mad

At this point do I just respond and say I deny any debt (ignoring their forms), and as part of that does it make sense to call these items and ask them to explain themselves for later use in court?

Yes.  No using the reply forms, so there is no question of leaving something blank.

Read the pre-action Protocol for debt claims (Google) and quote to BW Legal, the bit from it that says the Claimant MUST supply information that the D asks for, before court action commences, in efforts to resolve the matter out of court, and that a LBC must include a copy of the contract (sign, in this case). 

Ask them why they continue to file claims adding £60 despite being told at more than one Court (Southampton, Skipton and Warwick, to name three) that these exaggerated claims are not allowed and are an abuse of process.  Attach a copy of the Southampton transcript from the Britannia v Crosby thread and remind them BW Legal's barrister lost and they didn't appeal the decision so clearly accepted the learned Judge's decision.

If you haven't sent a SAR then also email a SAR to PPS (NOT BW LEGAL) at the same time (see NEWBIES thread about a SAR).

The_Slithy_Tove

adam_steiner said:

I've since received a response back from the LBC and SAR - what jumps out is:

1. They're pursuing as Registered Keeper, but they're not relying on Schedule 4 of PoFA
2. They stated the vehicle was observed by a parking attendant... no it wasn't as it was ANPR, no attendants on-site
3. They allege its a breach of contract, even though the claimant is pursuing due to particular contractual term
4. I asked them for specific terms that were breached as displayed on-site - they simply said you entered a contract and it was breached and thus analysis isn't necessary (lol)

It gets better and better (for you), as every single one of those 4 statements is so full of holes.
1. Do they say they're not relying on POFA? Does the NTK conform anyway?
2. Hold that thought, and if/when it comes to it, you'll of course be asking for a witness statement from the non-existent attendant.
3. See above what I and others have already stated
4. As you say, "lol". I think they'll find in court that analysis most certainly is necessary. It's also an example of unreasonable behaviour which you can use when it comes to costs.

adam_steiner

Thanks, I sent them a follow-up talking about debt-PAP and their obligations, that they need to provide legible image of the signage, asked them if theyre admitting their client is breaching their KADOE contract in relation to POFA (B2.1.A) as they said theyre not relying on POFA, and why do they keep insisting on the added claims (I did raise that in my previous letter as well).
Made a SAR request last month and received that, and notified my MP who wants to stay in the loop. Lets see what comes back. Thanks again

Castle

adam_steiner said:

Made a SAR request last month and received that, and notified my MP who wants to stay in the loop. Lets see what comes back. Thanks again

And did your SAR reply include all the notes and photographs taken by the Parking Attendant? If not, ask for them because they are claiming that an Attendant was present.