Britannia Parking - Canvey Island Seafront

D_P_Dance

I suggest you copy that correspondence to the SRA. referring them to Excel v Wilkinson.  

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

Mannis12

dfdandan said:

Hi all,
I received a PCN from Britannia Parking today saying I have to pay £60 fine. I paid using cash on the day and no longer have the ticket receipt that was in my windscreen showing proof of payment. Can you help?
Thanks

I am currently fighting a pcn from britannia in the same car park, I would greatly appreciate if you could pm me any photos you have of the pay and display machine as I live no where near Canvey Island and need this for my defence. Any signs also would be helpful. 
Thanks in advance. 

dfdandan

So everyone is updated and also for others to see...
I received a reply to my other email I replied to with this:
Good Afternoon 

 

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

 

As we have previously stated, additional charges due to non-payment were agreed to by you, when your vehicle entered and remained on private land in excess of the grace period. Details of additional charges were displayed on the signage in situ and formed a core term of the parking contract. As a result, it is our Client’s position the additional costs are recoverable and form a core term of the parking contract. 

 

We would also note, the decision reached in the case of Excel v Wilkinson was done so in County Court and idoes not constitute a binding decision. 

 

The full balance remains due and owing. 

 

Please contact us to make a payment proposal for the outstanding amount. 

 

Should you have any queries please contact our office on 0113 487 0432, or alternatively sign in or register on our Online Customer Portal at www.bwlegal.co.uk. 

 

Kind Regards, 

 

bwlegal

Coupon-mad

Ignore that.  We have had an employee of Excel/VCS posting here openly telling us that they are appealing a Leeds/Bradford strike out decision, even though they didn't appeal Excel v Wilkinson.

beamerguy

dfdandan said:

So everyone is updated and also for others to see...
I received a reply to my other email I replied to with this:
Good Afternoon 

 

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

 

As we have previously stated, additional charges due to non-payment were agreed to by you, when your vehicle entered and remained on private land in excess of the grace period. Details of additional charges were displayed on the signage in situ and formed a core term of the parking contract. As a result, it is our Client’s position the additional costs are recoverable and form a core term of the parking contract. 

 

We would also note, the decision reached in the case of Excel v Wilkinson was done so in County Court and idoes not constitute a binding decision. 

 

Oh dear ... BWLegal still playing the jokers card.

It's like dealing with a brick wall, you asked for their legal authority to add fakes, they passed the buck to their client, you asked what is their clients legal authority ... again it's ignored and they reply with garbage ?  
So what if somewhere on the signs .... always in the small print, it makes mention of extra charges, if they have no legal authority ... so what ?  
BWLegal still think that a code of practice is the reason, after all of their excuses in the past, all they are left with is the code of practice which as everyone knows is complete nonsensical rubbish.

Excel v Wilkinson is just one example of abuse of process, but of course you can supply a very long list of BWLegal court failures because of abuse of process.
All are very persuasive. Despite all of these failures they are still trying it on with the courts.

Complete failure by BWLegal and their client to explain their legal authority, so their attempt to confuse can only result in their case being unreliable and the court must be asked to strike out the case

You sent me a PM and I will respond later

dfdandan

Thank you beamerguy for your help with this I really do appreciate it!! Once I have had a reply from BW I will post it on here for all to see and for others to use as a resource etc 

Coupon-mad

Please don't.   The court is not going to strike a claim out (except in Leeds/Bradford right now).  BW Legal are not going to say anything interesting or new.

This is an utter waste of time and we really do not want to se BW Legal's stock reply and you asking for the 'next step'.   I told you to ignore that reply.

Please stop, alternatively, if you really want to waste hours of time playing games with BW Legal, assisted by beamerguy by pm then have fun, but please spare us - don't share the pointless replies with the forum, thanks. 

beamerguy

Coupon-mad said:

Please stop, alternatively, if you really want to waste hours of time playing games with BW Legal, assisted by beamerguy by pm then have fun, but please spare us - don't share the pointless replies with the forum, thanks. 

We are having fun C-m and I have told the OP not to post any of the replies here for the reasons above ? 
THEY ARE NOT POINTLESS ?

To ignore is tantamount to a claim and you don't know what is being said, I'm sure you are not interested, that is of no interest to me ..... just trying to prove your claim of a 99% win and ignoring is not the way forward.

You disturb me and as I keep saying to you, you have my email addy but nowadays you never respond .. why not ?

dfdandan

Thanks beamerguy I have messaged them back privately to help them with the case.
Our replies to users should be graceful as this is a forum to help others and is indeed voluntary.
Thanks 

Coupon-mad

 you have my email addy but nowadays you never respond .. why not ?

I am working full time and am also utterly fed up with this silly game and have no reason to want to discuss it yet again. 

Totally pointless and we don't want updates which would encourage others to chase off on the same wild goose chase.