Premier Parking Solutions BW Legal - Pay within 10min

adam_steiner

Hey folks -
so got a response back and wanted to see what your thoughts are -
1. so they're pursuing me as keeper but not relying on POFA, I point out this would violate KADOE terms (B2.1a), they return and quote B2.1b that "otherwise seek recovery from a driver".... but theyre pursuing me as a keeper? so their first letter saying theyre not relying on POFA is still breach of KADOE right? ... I want to see if I can get their DVLA access withdrawn you see.
2. I asked for the terms and conditions printed on site (explicitly mentioned readable copy), they sent back pictures with very pixelated unreadable text, deliberate or incompetent I don't know - would you pester them for it or just move on and raise it in the court?
On the other hand I wouldnt mind letting things progress to court.
Thoughts?

adam_steiner

Hi again, Hope everyone is safe and healthy. Following my last message I wrote back to them insisting I wanted a legible version of the terms and conditions on site - they "The signage provided is sufficient. You entered the site and thus accepted terms and conditions. Signage is plentiful and clearly displayed". I've requested the T&Cs twice and only received rejection and pixelated illegible images -- are they allowed to refuse like that? I also called out the parking operator part, it not being part of SAR etc., they just brush it off saying they confirm it was ANPR. How much ammunition do I need to make a serious SRA case? Has anyone been successful with that? Feel these guys fit the bill. Thanks all!

nosferatu1001

Yes of course they can refuse. This isnt regulated
But of course it doesnt look good in court...

beamerguy

adam_steiner said:

Hi again, Hope everyone is safe and healthy. Following my last message I wrote back to them insisting I wanted a legible version of the terms and conditions on site - they "The signage provided is sufficient. You entered the site and thus accepted terms and conditions. Signage is plentiful and clearly displayed". I've requested the T&Cs twice and only received rejection and pixelated illegible images -- are they allowed to refuse like that? I also called out the parking operator part, it not being part of SAR etc., they just brush it off saying they confirm it was ANPR. How much ammunition do I need to make a serious SRA case? Has anyone been successful with that? Feel these guys fit the bill. Thanks all!

It is fair to say that BWLegal are as daft as a brush and totally out of their depth
Real legals don't make schoolboy mistakes like BWLegal do .....  ignoring you when you tried to get info is great meat for a judge.   
BWLegal say they have some 250 staff but seems only one of them writes nonsensical letters
I often wonder if BWLegal have a spy in their camp to make them look stupid

Your complaint to the SRA will comprise of the story of the disgusting BWLegal

adam_steiner

Hm, ok. Thought there may have been some law or rule. Is it worth pestering them? Otherwise my next response would be to deny any charge, not using their forms, or payment plans etc. Assume they would then submit a court claim.

nosferatu1001

No, again. this isnt regulated. You can keep pestering them as it builds a paper trail trhat they wont even show the alleged contract!

Redx

adam_steiner said:

Hm, ok. Thought there may have been some law or rule. Is it worth pestering them? Otherwise my next response would be to deny any charge, not using their forms, or payment plans etc. Assume they would then submit a court claim.

there are only 3 actual laws that we know about (the FOURTH is still with the MHCLG after more than 12 months)

law 1) POFA 2012

law 2) the CRA 2015

law 3) the EA2010 (where appicable)

so unless anyone else has any further laws to add regarding regulation (except the Parking Bill 2019) then thats all there is , plus the CPR,s and case law and court rulings like the COA and the SC (like Beavis)

so law 4) The Parking Bill 2019 by Sir Greg Knight is the one you are complaining about to your MP due to lack of implementation (although it wont be retrospective)

this is why you keep being told its not regulated