NEWBIES L B C AND DEBT CLAIM

Castle

Snakes_Belly said:

This reading of signs before you enter only has any relevance unless it is a barrier car park. Even then you could not reverse around and exit. You would have to drive around the car park and exit.

You can be fined (rightly) for using a mobile phone whilst driving yet according to the PPC's you should be able to read these signs whilst driving. Sometimes, as in recent cases reading the sign involved stopping on double yellow lines. 

Which may lead to a charge of "careless/dangerous driving"; since a car park is a public place and subject to the RTA.

Darren104

In response to the Letter of Claim. I did initially send an email like the one in the newbies thread stating i was seeking debt advice, and they replied saying they would give me breathing space till 27th November to respond. Any way guys, i have drafted a 6 page letter to BW Legal which i will email them in next couple days. If anyone wants me to post it up, let me know but i have had a couple of friends read it and they said it was a very good letter so watch this space. 

Coupon-mad

The only one we've seen stop a robo-claim from BW Legal is the sort of response in the thread by @Minotaur4 which threatens a £900 counterclaim. I've used that too, against DCBLegal and that worked (so far, silence) but only lends itself to a case where a counterclaim has merit.

Umkomaas

Darren104 said:

In response to the Letter of Claim. I did initially send an email like the one in the newbies thread stating i was seeking debt advice, and they replied saying they would give me breathing space till 27th November to respond. Any way guys, i have drafted a 6 page letter to BW Legal which i will email them in next couple days. If anyone wants me to post it up, let me know but i have had a couple of friends read it and they said it was a very good letter so watch this space. 

I doubt they'll get past page 1. 

Redx

So a fairly standard response where they claim to be perfect and you are not !! What did you expect ?

They follow their clients instructions , it's that simple

Coupon-mad

The abuse of process argument is defunct

No, it isn't.  The Semark-Jullien case is a damp squib, as you know, and made no finding either way about the illegality of charging twice for the standard letters that make up the core business model of scam parking operators.

Have you asked them for the machine records that they mention, showing that 'other payments were made' at that machine at that time?

Why are you paying another one at £15 per month, what went wrong that caused that agreement?

Darren104

Have you asked them for the machine records that they mention, showing that 'other payments were made' at that machine at that time?

Why are you paying another one at £15 per month, what went wrong that caused that agreement?
Yes i have received the machine records so there was another machine working at the time, so cant argue with that.
I aren't paying £15, that was  the previous PCN  3rd April, when i agreed it at the pre court telephone mediation. That's finished now, but in there letters they are asking for instalments of £15 per month to pay for the  this PCN of £160. Looks like this is set up for going to small claims so i need to start preparing my defence.

Were_Doomed

11 pages and we aren't even at court stage yet?

Were_Doomed

It just seems like extreme hand-holding to be at (now) 12 pages over what is only an LBC.

This is a forum - I am allowed my opinion (as long as it doesn't breach any forum rules, which I don't think it does).

Coupon-mad

Just a heads up - DON'T AGREE TO MEDIATION AGAIN.

It's a bullying process designed to make Defendants settle.