Help Please... NCP PCN BW Legal

Mrplay123456

Le_Kirk said:

What came up when you searched the forum or even asked Auntie Google?

Not a lot, will google now

Mrplay123456

Well i just wanted an example of one from them and to see if anyone had comments about each item they are using if asked about it.  I will just make a few notes on what I think is wrong and see what happens next Tuesday.  Many thanks for your time and efforts in helping others.

Le_Kirk said:

What came up when you searched the forum or even asked Auntie Google?

Nothing, more about writting one myself, which I have already submitted.

nosferatu1001

I g'tee the forum has been asked about their WS before. 

Mrplay123456

nosferatu1001 said:

I g'tee the forum has been asked about their WS before. 

Very good, but seems I am lacking the skills to find any of it... 

Timeouts

Mrplay123456 said:

The Defendant`s statement of truth must be questioned by the Court since the validity or otherwise of these items is outside the scope and knowledge of the Defendant and such matters ought properly to be investigated by the learned Judge.
What would be a good reply to this?

You must get a grip on this ...... this is just another feeble attempt by BWLegal to discredit you, 

It is the BWLegal claim that should be investigated by the judge as most judges have done already.
Simply this, the BWLegal claim is unreliable because they have added an amount (£60) which is an attempt of Double Recovery (not allowed by the courts) which in turn is Abuse of Process.

BWLegal so far have never explained the £60 apart from a feeble attempt saying the code of practice allows them ...... that is nonsensical garbage

Read this thread and understand why the BWLegal claim is unreliable
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

Even at this stage you can still ask them to explain the £60  If they don't (and they won't), then you ask the judge to ask them.

REMEMBER, it is BWLegal who need to be investigated .... NOT YOU

Coupon-mad

Mrplay123456 said:

The Defendant`s statement of truth must be questioned by the Court since the validity or otherwise of these items is outside the scope and knowledge of the Defendant and such matters ought properly to be investigated by the learned Judge.
What would be a good reply to this?

They always say this, as seen in all BW Legal cases here.   None of this is unexpected.  Easy to handle at the hearing; copy from others.  Skills?  You simply read any BW Legal threads!  Start on page 1 and work back clicking on ALL BW Legal threads.

Or, search the forum for ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST and read all the court wins and I guarantee about half of them will be BW Legal cases.

AND - CALLING ALL NEWBIES!

Time is running out.

An urgent task – deadline approaching in about ten days:

The Government is consulting for just a few more days, about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register then log in, to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker.  Submit comments as soon as you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

1. Read the cover letter

2. Read the cover letter again and note the suggested extra questions...and if you agree that, say, the 'loading/unloading and dropping off, asking for directions, and disabled people parking on double yellows as they can on street' activities listed should be exempt (not parking events, what do you think?) then please go to the Annexes at the end of the PAS Code and find the one about Exempt Vehicles and state what other activity you think should be added to the exempt list.  

 

If you do nothing else, please comment on:

- the amount of the parking charge levels

- the annexes at the end of the PAS (reading through the whole thing takes hours so if you have nothing to say about the definitions, for example, then skip to more vital points and the annex tables at the end.

- the bit about debt collectors and whether you think PPCs should be allowed to add 'costs' a second time, for the letters that are already within the rationale of the 'parking charge' sum...hmmm...

Responses into the PAS 232 and MHCLG framework documents are not completely straightforward:

On the MHCLG response, you have to answer the questions on a 1-5 scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then put some commentary. No way to upload documents or alternatives but this doesn't take long.

 

 On the PAS 232, you have to click on each clause and sub-clause to put your comments, and a suggested rewording of their draft.  You can see comments which other people have written!   But, when you click ‘submit’, a message pops up to say your comments have been received, but that only applies to the particular clause you have just addressed.  

You have to go back up and find the next section, then the next...

You have to click ‘submit’ separately for each individual clause response.  Some people will be caught out by this but can revisit it and add further responses up to 12 October.

 

Things to think about:

A Speeding fine is £100.  A Local Authority lower rate parking penalty is £50.  Which do you think a private PCN should be like or do you think it should be something different?  

Do you think if all payment methods are not functioning that PPC can 'fine' you?

 

Do you think the examples mentioned in the cover letter are right and need adding to the Annex?

 

etc. etc.

 

 

Mrplay123456

Well fingers crossed for tomorrow at 11.30am, I will post result when done....

Le_Kirk

Good luck for tomorrow.

When you have completed the consultations, both for PAS 232 and the Code Enforcement Framework, please let us know.

It does take a bit of time for the PAS 232 although you can comment and save and then go back and review/submit later.  The Code Enforcement Framework Consultation is a bit quicker.

To date there have been ONLY 645 (as of Monday 5th October) comments on the PAS (it is not possible to collect statistics for the Code Enforcement Framework Consultation as far as I know).  I have made over 20 comments and I know other regulars have made comments and some posters have stated they will but if we take an average of 10 comments per person, that is approximately 64.5 people (who is this 0.5 of a person).  If motorists are to have their say, more of you need to do this.

As we always remind you when advising you on parking appeals and small claims court hearings - do NOT miss this deadline - 12th October!

Mrplay123456

I lost..... Judge says no abuse and said they can charge the £60 recovery charge... Also quoted that the Judgements before about AOP where appealed and are not applicable now....
Said their terms and conditions where clear and binding and the £60.00 was fair
He did lower the interest charges to 2%
Legal tried to get other costs, but Judge said no...
I have 21 days to appeal if anyone would like to take it on or I will just pay up and have done with it...

Mrplay123456

The Abuse of Process template is not any good anymore, judge stated they are legally entitled to charge the extra... All other reference to judgements were ripped apart by the judge and none of the information about AOP was relevant.
Waiting for the summary of the decision and will post when it arrives.