Link Parking and BWLegal advice please

mgmju411

Hi All,

This is my first post but I have read the newbies threads and I’ve followed all the great advice in this forum for the last 6 months.  This has helped guide me so far in my challenge to Link Parking and BWlegal but I’m now at a point where I think it is time to seek direct expert advice from this forum.

I’ve been dealing with this on behalf of my wife who is the registered keeper of the vehicle  No driver details have been requested or provided to Link Parking or BWlegal.

Summary so far;

• PCN issued (apparently) 1st Nov 2019
• NTK received 4th Dec 2019
• Appealed the PCN using the template letter
• Cannot appeal to the landowner as it is not obvious who they are since the building has been vacated
• Following advice in the forum I decided not to use IAS
• Received  BWLegal initial letter 26th Mar 2020
• Appealed BWlegal’s letter
• Challenged BWlegal’s  response on more that one occasion
• Send a SAR request to Link Parking

Background

My wife who is the registered keeper of a Vehicle received an NTK from Link Parking in Dec 2019, there was no PCN attached to the vehicle.  It was alleged that the vehicle was parked in a “No Parking” area.  In fact it was parked on private land in Wales in one of the parking bays that were used by customers of a wholesaler which has been closed for some time.   The land is not pay and display, it doesn’t have any ANPR or any other adequate signage to show that parking is not allowed.  The land has been empty for some time and is used frequently by people who visit the local restaurants.

After receiving the NTK I went to the location and found that there were no signs at the entrance/exit to this land but I did find one small sign some distance from the entrance which was obscured by another sign.  This sign would not have been visible to the driver, especially as it was dark and the sign was not illuminated.  I took numerous photographs of the land and of the one obscured sign as evidence.

Based on the above I appealed to Link Parking stating that there was no PCN attached to the vehicle and that there was inadequate signage.

Link Parking rejected the appeal stating that their signs “clearly advertise the parking requirements” and attached a blurry photograph of the vehicle with a PCN on the windscreen.  They said I should appeal to IAS, which of course I didn’t do.

In March 2020 my wife received a letter from BWLegal who are chasing for settlement of £160 as they have added £60.  I challenged this on a number of occasions on the basis that the signage was inadequate and Abuse of Process which has been discussed in this forum. I also requested that Link Parking provide photographic evidence to support their claim that the signage was legal and conformed to the IPC’s code of Practice.

The latest reply from BWlegal said that the signage was “sufficient” despite my photographic evidence to the contrary and that the additional 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”.  They stated that Link Parking do not have to provide photographic evidence to prove that the signage was legal and also referenced the case of Vine v Waltham Forest LBC 2002.

In all my correspondence I have stated that my wife is the registered keeper and denied any debt is owed by her.  

I’m now at the stage where it is obvious that no amount of discussion with BWlegal will make any difference.  So I wanted to know what I should do now, is it just wait for court papers to be issued?

beamerguy

The latest reply from BWlegal said that the signage was “sufficient” despite my photographic evidence to the contrary and that the additional 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”.  They stated that Link Parking do not have to provide photographic evidence to prove that the signage was legal and also referenced the case of Vine v Waltham Forest LBC 2002.

WRONG BWLEGAL ???  ..... This is standard rubbish from BWLegal.
“entirely reasonable"   “entirely ABUSE OF PROCESS" ... That's what they mean ??
Do they really believe they don't have to show the signs that they rely upon .... that alone is a huge joke, they must think the judge is stupid

Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1?new=1
Continue to PART 2
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

BWLEGAL are living in the past by referring to such an old case, in other words they are dredging the barrel.    Right now, they must obey POFA2012, the Supreme court, the courts own double recovery rules.   BWLegal simply fail to explain their legal authority to add a fake £60.   Ask them, you will just get a nonsensical reply.   Any claim from BWLegal that adds the fake £60 must be deemed as unreliable with a request to the court for it to be struck out for ABUSE OF PROCESS

BWLegal are still in denial about the unlawful charge.

For more reading >>>> BWLEGAL --- THE SCAM ?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6129744/bwlegal-the-scam/p1?new=1

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation. 

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up,

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/of these Private Parking Companies.

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

mgmju411

Do you think I should continue to challenge BWLegal regarding abuse of process and the lack of photographic evidence or should I wait to see if they issue court proceedings?

beamerguy

mgmju411 said:

Do you think I should continue to challenge BWLegal regarding abuse of process and the lack of photographic evidence or should I wait to see if they issue court proceedings?

More like warn them that unless they provide their legal authority to add an unlawful £60 and fail to provide evidence of the signs, you will ask the court to strike out their claim as being unreliable

You have tried and they have failed so it's now up to BWLegal to prove their claim

Coupon-mad

If you were the driver (I'm not clear about that) decide which of the two of you is best to be the Defendant because she can name you as the driver before court action (only if true, of course).

Pointless IMHO to keep talking to a wall.  BW Legal are a brick wall. 

Defend it in court as dodgy signs win a case for people like you, and did you know Vine v Waltham Forest was won by Miss Vine, and actually supports a defence where the signs were not properly displayed?! Go read it.

beamerguy

Coupon-mad said:

Pointless IMHO to keep talking to a wall.  BW Legal are a brick wall. 

Defend it in court as dodgy signs win a case for people like you, and did you know Vine v Waltham Forest was won by Miss Vine, and actually supports a defence where the signs were not properly displayed?! Go read it.

The problem with BWLegal is they came into this industry for the kill ?    THEY ARE FAILURES
And when they quote a case they will rely on where the defendant WON, they are now reaching the dizzy heights of total incompetence.

Do people know that .....
"Shard Credit Partners has announced the completion of the management buy-outs (MBO’s) of both BW Legal Services and PRAC Financial by Rachael Withers, COO and co-founder of both businesses."
https://www.credit-connect.co.uk/consumer-news/mergers-acquisitions/shard-credit-partners-backs-management-buy-out-of-bw-legal-services/

Are Shard aware of such incompetence one must ask

mgmju411

Hello.  Since my last post I e-mailed BWlegal on numerous occasions challenging their statements, asking for evidence that the parking signs were legal and on what legal authority they added £60, but as you will probably have guessed they continued to evade answering my questions or provide the evidence.  Despite explaining that I have photographic proof that the signs were totally inadequate today my wife received a County Court summons.  I intend to complete the AOS early next week and wanted to check what I should start my defence with.  Abuse of process or inadequate signage?  

KeithP

mgmju411 said:

...today my wife received a County Court summons. 

It won't have been a summons, but was it perhaps a County Court Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton?

If so, then please tell us the Issue Date on that Claim Form.

mgmju411

Yes you are correct it was from Northampton.  The issue date is 26th Nov 

beamerguy

mgmju411 said:

Hello.  Since my last post I e-mailed BWlegal on numerous occasions challenging their statements, asking for evidence that the parking signs were legal and on what legal authority they added £60, but as you will probably have guessed they continued to evade answering my questions or provide the evidence.  Despite explaining that I have photographic proof that the signs were totally inadequate today my wife received a County Court summons.  I intend to complete the AOS early next week and wanted to check what I should start my defence with.  Abuse of process or inadequate signage?  

They evade because they have no suitable answer.
The courts already know they practice abuse of process.  It is now a case  to ask a court how reliable their claim is when they fail to explain the £60.    Same thing, just different words.

And don't let BWLegal try and fob off a judge with "the code of practice says they can"

The code of practice is a code only for an ATA member only and forms no contract with a motorist.