Multiple Parking fines - NCP / Trace debt recovery and BW Legal

D_P_Dance

Do not forget to complain to the SRA.

beamerguy

hayd555 said:

Hi all,
Just had a letter though from BW legal asking for £100 parking fee and £60 legal costs from Trace to be paid bt 6th April. Or they will then take this to court.
This is 1 of the oustanding 10 I have, long story short I had my car registered to and old house so I never recieved any of the initial communication from NCP car park.
I was contempt about paying the fee's to the NCP car park. however not the additional fees £600 in total to Trace for "which are detailed in the PCN and/or ouyt clients terms and conditions".
The signage actually does not state what amount that is, which I believe is a huge no go.
What is my next steps? 

BWLEGAL / TRACE are completely round the bend. This is a prime letter to show a judge that they are adding unlawful charges    Wonder if BWLegal will risk telling lies to a judge with the new Civil procedure in force on the 6th of April which says .....

For witness statements, the statement of truth’s wording will be as follows:
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

There is clearly a complete idiot at BWLegal who writes this rubbish

hayd555

beamerguy said:

hayd555 said:

Hi all,
Just had a letter though from BW legal asking for £100 parking fee and £60 legal costs from Trace to be paid bt 6th April. Or they will then take this to court.
This is 1 of the oustanding 10 I have, long story short I had my car registered to and old house so I never recieved any of the initial communication from NCP car park.
I was contempt about paying the fee's to the NCP car park. however not the additional fees £600 in total to Trace for "which are detailed in the PCN and/or ouyt clients terms and conditions".
The signage actually does not state what amount that is, which I believe is a huge no go.
What is my next steps? 

BWLEGAL / TRACE are completely round the bend. This is a prime letter to show a judge that they are adding unlawful charges    Wonder if BWLegal will risk telling lies to a judge with the new Civil procedure in force on the 6th of April which says .....

For witness statements, the statement of truth’s wording will be as follows:
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

There is clearly a complete idiot at BWLegal who writes this rubbish

Thanks again beamerguy, I've sent off my complaint to SRA. 

I shall message BW to consolidate all of the claims, They will probably come in trickles due to the dates.

beamerguy

hayd555 said:

beamerguy said:

hayd555 said:

Hi all,
Just had a letter though from BW legal asking for £100 parking fee and £60 legal costs from Trace to be paid bt 6th April. Or they will then take this to court.
This is 1 of the oustanding 10 I have, long story short I had my car registered to and old house so I never recieved any of the initial communication from NCP car park.
I was contempt about paying the fee's to the NCP car park. however not the additional fees £600 in total to Trace for "which are detailed in the PCN and/or ouyt clients terms and conditions".
The signage actually does not state what amount that is, which I believe is a huge no go.
What is my next steps? 

BWLEGAL / TRACE are completely round the bend. This is a prime letter to show a judge that they are adding unlawful charges    Wonder if BWLegal will risk telling lies to a judge with the new Civil procedure in force on the 6th of April which says .....

For witness statements, the statement of truth’s wording will be as follows:
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

There is clearly a complete idiot at BWLegal who writes this rubbish

Thanks again beamerguy, I've sent off my complaint to SRA. 

I shall message BW to consolidate all of the claims, They will probably come in trickles due to the dates.

They have all the time in the world ..... they probably don't know there is a lockdown

And as they will all be the same, get one under your belt and let BWL stand up against a wall with another angry judge with a big whip.

BWLegal are so out of their depth right now

hayd555

beamerguy said:

hayd555 said:

beamerguy said:

hayd555 said:

Hi all,
Just had a letter though from BW legal asking for £100 parking fee and £60 legal costs from Trace to be paid bt 6th April. Or they will then take this to court.
This is 1 of the oustanding 10 I have, long story short I had my car registered to and old house so I never recieved any of the initial communication from NCP car park.
I was contempt about paying the fee's to the NCP car park. however not the additional fees £600 in total to Trace for "which are detailed in the PCN and/or ouyt clients terms and conditions".
The signage actually does not state what amount that is, which I believe is a huge no go.
What is my next steps? 

BWLEGAL / TRACE are completely round the bend. This is a prime letter to show a judge that they are adding unlawful charges    Wonder if BWLegal will risk telling lies to a judge with the new Civil procedure in force on the 6th of April which says .....

For witness statements, the statement of truth’s wording will be as follows:
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

There is clearly a complete idiot at BWLegal who writes this rubbish

Thanks again beamerguy, I've sent off my complaint to SRA. 

I shall message BW to consolidate all of the claims, They will probably come in trickles due to the dates.

They have all the time in the world ..... they probably don't know there is a lockdown

And as they will all be the same, get one under your belt and let BWL stand up against a wall with another angry judge with a big whip.

BWLegal are so out of their depth right now

Hi Beamerguy/all,

I asked them to consoilidate the PCN Charged, I have finally had a response from BW Legal:

"""Good Afternoon

 

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

 

Please note that in order to use the facility it is your responsibility to abide by the terms and conditions. As the vehicle involved in the contravention was parked without making payment of the parking charge these terms and conditions were broken.

The ANPR cameras record the registrations of the vehicles that enter and exit the car park and our Client cross-references this against the data extracted from the parking machines (and alternative cashless payment methods), to check that valid tickets have been purchased for the registrations of the vehicles which have entered the car park. As no ticket was found to have been purchased for your vehicle, our Client issued you a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). Our Client has not received an appeal regarding this contravention, however if you have evidence to the contrary, for example a copy of a ticket from the date of the contravention showing the length of time paid for the vehicle registration (or a confirmation message from an alternative cashless payment showing the same), we will pass this to our Client for their consideration. Otherwise, the outstanding balance will remain due and owing.

Our Client allows a period of time from your entry into the car park for the motorist to read and understand the terms and conditions at the location, or remove their vehicle from the car park. The signage situated across the car park forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park their vehicle at the location. As the offer is a unilateral one, there is no need for the motorist to communicate their acceptance; the performance of parking in accordance with the Terms and Conditions is the act of acceptance. The signs are prominent and the Terms and Conditions are clearly displayed, and the motorist would have had the opportunity to read and understand them on parking at the car park. As established members of the British Parking Association, Our Client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ('Code of Practice'). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the car park. The signs within the car park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable. As you were in the car park for longer than the period which Our Client allows for you to read and understand the Terms and Conditions, an objective observer would consider this action to have been done in acceptance of the Terms and Conditions.

The £100.00 charge is regarded as a charge for contravening the Terms and Conditions. The sum payable following the issue of the PCN occurs on the happening of a specific event (i.e. a material breach of the Terms and Conditions) and is therefore a core term of Our Client's contract with you. 

It is irrelevant whether or not the charge as displayed bears any relation to the cost for parking (even where there is no cost involved). Our Client relies on the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that PCN charges, like this charge, serve a legitimate commercial interest. The relevant car parking Codes of Practice, also give guidance that £100.00 is a reasonable sum to charge.

The signage in situ makes provision for Our Client to recover any additional costs (Contractual Costs) incurred by them in relation to the PCN. The Contractual Costs referred to above formed part of the Terms and Conditions (of the parking contract) which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the car park. Save for the fact that the sum of £60.00 attributable towards these costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charge, such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.

We trust this now concludes any outstanding queries you had raised with ourselves. It is important that you now contact us in order to discuss an affordable payment arrangement. Should you not wish to arrange and affordable repayment plan for this outstanding balance, we strongly recommend that you seek your own independent legal advice.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact our office on 0113 487 0432.

 

Kind Regards, 

 

bwlegal """

hayd555

hayd555 said:

beamerguy said:

hayd555 said:

beamerguy said:

hayd555 said:

Hi all,
Just had a letter though from BW legal asking for £100 parking fee and £60 legal costs from Trace to be paid bt 6th April. Or they will then take this to court.
This is 1 of the oustanding 10 I have, long story short I had my car registered to and old house so I never recieved any of the initial communication from NCP car park.
I was contempt about paying the fee's to the NCP car park. however not the additional fees £600 in total to Trace for "which are detailed in the PCN and/or ouyt clients terms and conditions".
The signage actually does not state what amount that is, which I believe is a huge no go.
What is my next steps? 

BWLEGAL / TRACE are completely round the bend. This is a prime letter to show a judge that they are adding unlawful charges    Wonder if BWLegal will risk telling lies to a judge with the new Civil procedure in force on the 6th of April which says .....

For witness statements, the statement of truth’s wording will be as follows:
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

There is clearly a complete idiot at BWLegal who writes this rubbish

Thanks again beamerguy, I've sent off my complaint to SRA. 

I shall message BW to consolidate all of the claims, They will probably come in trickles due to the dates.

They have all the time in the world ..... they probably don't know there is a lockdown

And as they will all be the same, get one under your belt and let BWL stand up against a wall with another angry judge with a big whip.

BWLegal are so out of their depth right now

Hi Beamerguy/all,

I asked them to consoilidate the PCN Charged, I have finally had a response from BW Legal:

"""Good Afternoon

 

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

 

Please note that in order to use the facility it is your responsibility to abide by the terms and conditions. As the vehicle involved in the contravention was parked without making payment of the parking charge these terms and conditions were broken.

The ANPR cameras record the registrations of the vehicles that enter and exit the car park and our Client cross-references this against the data extracted from the parking machines (and alternative cashless payment methods), to check that valid tickets have been purchased for the registrations of the vehicles which have entered the car park. As no ticket was found to have been purchased for your vehicle, our Client issued you a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). Our Client has not received an appeal regarding this contravention, however if you have evidence to the contrary, for example a copy of a ticket from the date of the contravention showing the length of time paid for the vehicle registration (or a confirmation message from an alternative cashless payment showing the same), we will pass this to our Client for their consideration. Otherwise, the outstanding balance will remain due and owing.

Our Client allows a period of time from your entry into the car park for the motorist to read and understand the terms and conditions at the location, or remove their vehicle from the car park. The signage situated across the car park forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park their vehicle at the location. As the offer is a unilateral one, there is no need for the motorist to communicate their acceptance; the performance of parking in accordance with the Terms and Conditions is the act of acceptance. The signs are prominent and the Terms and Conditions are clearly displayed, and the motorist would have had the opportunity to read and understand them on parking at the car park. As established members of the British Parking Association, Our Client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ('Code of Practice'). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the car park. The signs within the car park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable. As you were in the car park for longer than the period which Our Client allows for you to read and understand the Terms and Conditions, an objective observer would consider this action to have been done in acceptance of the Terms and Conditions.

The £100.00 charge is regarded as a charge for contravening the Terms and Conditions. The sum payable following the issue of the PCN occurs on the happening of a specific event (i.e. a material breach of the Terms and Conditions) and is therefore a core term of Our Client's contract with you. 

It is irrelevant whether or not the charge as displayed bears any relation to the cost for parking (even where there is no cost involved). Our Client relies on the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that PCN charges, like this charge, serve a legitimate commercial interest. The relevant car parking Codes of Practice, also give guidance that £100.00 is a reasonable sum to charge.

The signage in situ makes provision for Our Client to recover any additional costs (Contractual Costs) incurred by them in relation to the PCN. The Contractual Costs referred to above formed part of the Terms and Conditions (of the parking contract) which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the car park. Save for the fact that the sum of £60.00 attributable towards these costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charge, such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.

We trust this now concludes any outstanding queries you had raised with ourselves. It is important that you now contact us in order to discuss an affordable payment arrangement. Should you not wish to arrange and affordable repayment plan for this outstanding balance, we strongly recommend that you seek your own independent legal advice.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact our office on 0113 487 0432.

 

Kind Regards, 

 

bwlegal """

It seems that they only are sitting on one PCN at the moment out of 9 I believe. 

Coupon-mad

Refer PPC senders of duplicate claims or LBCs, to:

'' the well known rule in Henderson v Henderson that was most famously considered in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (No. 1). In summary, that rule provides that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation between parties in a court of competent jurisdiction, they should bring their whole case before the court. In the absence of special circumstances, the parties cannot return to the court to advance arguments, claims or defences which they could have put forward for decision on the first occasion but failed to raise. The abuse at which this rule is directed, as articulated in Barrow v Bankside Agency Ltd, is:

“…desirability, in the general interest as well as that of the parties themselves, that litigation should not drag on forever and that a defendant should not be oppressed by successive suits when one would do”.

The parking firm must ensure that their entire case is consolidated into one claim.   

You can say that a claim cannot lawfully be filed yet, because the Claimant has failed to complete the requirements of the pre-action protocol ('PAP') for debt claims, 2017.  

Under the PAP, the Claimant must also supply a copy of the contract (the sign) that is alleged to have been breached and all the other facts upon which they rely, that relate to that alleged contract.  

Also ask whether the PPC intends to rely upon the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and are they attempting to hold you liable as registered keeper.  If they have evidence of the driver's identity they must disclose that in order to narrow the issues.

Le_Kirk

Ha, that should make BW fold up their tents and disappear into the darkness never to be seen again.  It won't but we can dream.

beamerguy

A good follow up letter by coupon-mad in answer

Here is the nonsensical rubbish of their letter
Save for the fact that the sum of £60.00 attributable towards these costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charge, such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.

The relevant code of practice they refer to, is ONLY applicable to parking companies who subscribe to either ATA.
As the motorist is NOT a subscriber or member of either ATA, there is NO contract for the false £60 which as been falsely added and is against the Consumer Rights Act 2015, POFA2012 and the Supreme court ruling

The quicker BWLegal gets this into their head instead of sending out rubbish letters and living in the clouds, the better

D_P_Dance

You should complain the strongest possible terms to the SRA that they are lying.  Such conduct is liable to bring this ancient profession into disrepute.

https://www.sra.org.uk/



ti