POPLA appeal unsuccessful over bizarre keying error claim

Coupon-mad

sulky_lizard said:

Hi guys! Just to let you know, we had some new correspondence from Britannia saying they are "legally bound" (???) to uphold POPLA's decision and have issued us a final warning to pay the fine before it's increased to £160. I've drafted a response telling them that we refused to be scammed and that we have reported the case to the local MP. Is it worth posting our responses in here before sending, or just carry on as per normal while they bombard us with the threats?

Send a complaint to Steve Clark at the BPA if Britannia are saying they are 'legally bound' to uphold POPLA's decision.  See post #5 of the NEWBIES about BPA complaints.

If you do ONE thing, get all your family to do this and ask your MP to do the same!!

AND - get ANGRY and GET EVEN about this scam!   Please now make a real difference:

A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER:

The Government is (this month only) consulting 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 to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once 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:

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.

 

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 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.

 

 

sulky_lizard

Hello everyone

A quick update on this case. To refresh your memory, Britannia claimed that my partner had made a keying error on her parking ticket in Basildon. However, they didn't provide any further details. As was only disclosed during the POPLA appeal, the claim was that my partner had got all 7 digits of her car registration horribly wrong (clearly that's an impossibility). However, the new evidence that Britannia only disclosed when we appealed to POPLA showed that my partner's reg had in fact been recorded, but with a time of one hour later, and with one digit out. It points out to a clear and obvious machine fault.
As predicted, BW Legal has been hounding my partner to pay for this fine.

She has now received a final notice from BW Legal that should we not pay the balance of £160 (increased from £100) by early Feb, then they will bring legal proceedings against us in a county court. The letter asks that if we are still continuing to dispute this debt, please can we let them know why so that they can "help resolve the matter." My partner did actually already have a long phone conversation with one of their legal people back in November I believe.

My question is a simple one:
Obviously, we we will go back to BW Legal and re-explain our reasons for not paying. However, in this correspondence, should we also mention now that we believe Britannia doesn't even have legal right to issue fines for this car park due to the inconsistency regarding the company name? Plus, the fact it's also unlawful for them to increase the fine from £100 to £160.
Thank you so much!
SL

nosferatu1001

Blah blah rubbish from them. If you have sent the debt denied letter then there is nothign else to do until you get a court claim form. 
Why on earth would you ring? Phone calls onlyt ever help them. 
Just point out you know that the parking contract is with firm A and they are firm B, and so there is no cause of action for firm B. If they are so foolish enough to go to court, you will absolutely counterclaim. 

Umkomaas

My question is a simple one:
Obviously, we we will go back to BW Legal and re-explain our reasons for not paying. However, in this correspondence, should we also mention now that we believe Britannia doesn't even have legal right to issue fines for this car park due to the inconsistency regarding the company name? Plus, the fact it's also unlawful for them to increase the fine from £100 to £160.
Thank you so much!
SL

BWL will want to help you ....... remove £160 from your wallet, there's nothing else!

IMHO, this cannot be resolved to your satisfaction unless/until a court hearing is fixed. They will know about the issues surrounding the Britannia name, but they are unlikely to do anything by you contacting them.  It needs to be put into a formal court document - Defence/Witness Statement.

sulky_lizard

Thanks guys! Just for the record, it was actually BW Legal who made the phone-call, not the other way round. We were just ignoring their correspondence and had no interest in speaking with them, but somehow, their legal people got hold of my partners' mobile number and telephoned her. They spoke at length, quite amicably actually, but then we never heard anything for ages, and then began receiving automated reminder letters again.

Redx

You cannot argue with idiots , let them spend money to put it before a judge , counter claim when your defence is submitted , let a judge decide , in court

All the rest is a sideshow so let them sleep it off in the cells , don't argue with a drunk who knows the law (course he does) 😜

beamerguy

She has now received a final notice from BW Legal that should we not pay the balance of £160 (increased from £100) by early Feb, then they will bring legal proceedings against us in a county court. 

Is it a final notice or a letter before claim ?
BWLegal will not have a clue what's going on anyway
BWLegal as usual are faking the amount, the added £60 is unlawful and they are mug hunting
If it's not a letter before claim, it's just a debt crawling letter to ignore.

Before they can bring a claim they must send you a letter before claim giving you 30 days to respond and providing evidence.  Then you can respond and tell them things they know nothing about ... IE Dodgy pay machines, not the first time with Britannia
This will probably be another car crash for BWLegal and the fake £60 would be a trigger for the judge.  WHY, because BWL complain about judges ... whoops you don't do that ???

So, they want money by early feb.  They are not going to get it.  Then they send a letter before claim giving you 30 days and if they continue to court, probably looking in the summer now. They run the risk of the judge kicking out the case anyway

fisherjim

So they are basically saying the parking was paid for but the technology that they thrust on people is not fit for purpose, not really a good idea for them to take that to court I would have thought.

beamerguy

fisherjim said:

So they are basically saying the parking was paid for but the technology that they thrust on people is not fit for purpose, not really a good idea for them to take that to court I would have thought.

You are right but they take the most idiotic cases to court and then wonder why a judge gives them a good spanking. Nowadays we just laugh

KeithP

sulky_lizard said:

Thanks guys! Just for the record, it was actually BW Legal who made the phone-call, not the other way round. We were just ignoring their correspondence and had no interest in speaking with them, but somehow, their legal people got hold of my partners' mobile number and telephoned her. They spoke at length, quite amicably actually, but then we never heard anything for ages, and then began receiving automated reminder letters again.

"They spoke at length" - I wonder what information BWL managed to extract from that call? The call was probably recorded and analysed at length afterwards to see if the Defendant incriminated herself.

It is never a good idea to speak on the telephone to a parking company or their representatives. They are only after money and don't care how they might get it.