BW Legal Letter of Claim (Newcastle Airport) 2020 (5yr After Alleged Contravention)

chris0241

Hi all,

Firstly thank you for taking the time to click into this, and for all the help and advice on other threads. I've read the sticky's and I've gone through ALL the pages on other cases at Newcastle Airport, and I'm left feeling dazed and confused. 

Back in 2015 I received a PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE from UKPPO Ltd for the driver allegedly being in contravention of byelaw 6.3 (Parking in prohibited area) / 1315 - Roads Surrounding Newcastle Airport. The vehicle was a rental.

I replied at the time stating the following facts:
* The rental company supplied information on the hirer, not the driver. There is no evidence (CCTV or otherwise) who was driving and I was in no legal obligation to do so. 

* A "parking event" did not take place, stopping in the road way briefly does not constitute parking. 

* The change is in respect of byelaws, and the byelaws at the time stated airport car parks and drop off/pick up areas. 
* The signage on the road system one must stop as it's so small, thus creating an oxymoron. The driver could not have read, understood and accepted the information. 
* By invoking the airport byelaws they must impose any byelaw penalty in the same manner and can only hold the known driver responsible. The byelaws do not allow transference of an alledged breach to a non byelaw civil action and it should thus be dealt with in a magistrates court. I noted this was fraudulent. 
* There are discrepancies in the signage (at the time Park & Fly Ltd) and the correspondence (UKPPO Ltd)

They replied at the time telling me they had "carefully considered" my evidence and rejected the appeal for the following (looked like copy/paste) reasons:
* The vehicle was stationary on double red line causing an obstruction to the car park entrance (it wasn't). They said there's no requirement for a driver to leave their car in order to define 'parking' and referenced Strong vs Dawtry (1961). 

* They are in possession of "full CCTV footage that clearly identifies the driver and a copy is available on request" (they ignored my request for it at the time). 
* "As the land is subject to byelaws and the penalty was issued under byelaws and not contract law the Protection of Freedom Act does not apply and the registered keeper is held liable"
* Penalties are not issues to drivers who merely pause to read the warning signs, only when a vehicle stops and loads/unloads.

After this I had a flurry of low rent "solicitors" (in the loosest sense) letters which I ignored. After about 6 months it all dried up, until July 2020. BW Legal in Leeds started writing and phoning persistently, I've no idea where they got my personal phone number from as it wasn't on the rental agreement. Each time I asked them to stop calling as I considered it harassment but they wouldn't so in the end I blocked the number. 
As per forum advice, I did a SAR and received the original PENALTY Charge Notice (note, not PARKING), and overdue reminder a month later and a collection of screen shots from their back end admin system. In the covering letter they told me they no longer held the CCTV footage but I was entitled to contact Debt Revoery Plus Ltd or "our solicitors" (unnamed) to enquire if they held a copy. 
They declined by request for PDT machine payments from the day, and all evidence they will rely on (claiming the they are either not the data controller or the question does not apply in the circumstances under which they process personal data. 

I have recently received a Letter Of Claim from BW Legal, which I understand I need to reply to. The debt and legal costs is £160 and they are estimating additional fees should it go to county court to take the total to £275. 

I would be eternally grateful (and happy to contribute the fine to a charity if successful) for any advice members can offer in how to proceed. I've read hundreds of posts both here and Pepipoo and I'm quite perplexed how to proceed. The time that's passed is so long my memory is hazy and I certainly can't go back and photograph signage as it may well have changed. Coupled with this, the case seems unique in that UKPPO were at the time member of BPA and the original PCN and reminder letter specifically called it a "PENALTY Charge Notice" (which I'm under the impression only Local Authorities can issue?)


Thanks so much in anticipation, and thanks for taking the time to read (unless you are an employee of the referenced companies!),

Chris

Redx

Read recent threads where b w legal have issued an LoC and read the replies regarding the reply , like stating that you dispute any alleged debt and to explain the additional unlawful £60 charge etc

Note , that question has been done to death on here in the last 2 or more years , so there is no excuse for expecting anyone to give detailed advice , it's a delaying tactic only , so if you have the 30 days notice and financial forms you are in the same position as hundreds of other people who have posted on here and on pepipoo fightback forums , the same advice applies in all LoC cases

Do not fill in the form's , just reply and dispute the LoC etc

As you have already done the SAR , only repeat it for any missing info like CCTV etc , anything not included in any replies , plus send a SAR to b w legal too , for all missing evidence etc

Then sit back and await the court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton in due course , plus the replies to your emails as well. With b w legal , just play ping pong with the emails

So at the moment , forget about the incident and subsequent letters and phone calls , concentrate on the here and now , same as everyone else with an LBC from any company , like this DCBL one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6194088/dcb-legal-letter-of-claim-what-can-i-expect-next#latest

chris0241

Redx said:

As you have already done the SAR , only repeat it for any missing info like CCTV etc , anything not included in any replies , plus send a SAR to b w legal too , for all missing evidence etc

Then sit back and await the court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton in due course , plus the replies to your emails as well. With b w legal , just play ping pong with the emails

So at the moment , forget about the incident and subsequent letters and phone calls , concentrate on the here and now , same as everyone else with an LBC from any company , like this DCBL one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6194088/dcb-legal-letter-of-claim-what-can-i-expect-next#latest

Thank you @Redx! 

I know it's a pain with lots of people posting similar things but each feels slightly different, from the word PENALTY to PARKING the UKPPO being member of different governing bodies... not to mention the signage which has probably changed at the airport. 
As per your advice, I've written to BW asking them to hold while I request missing items from UKPPO, plus a SAR for evidence they hold... and I've written to UKPPO requesting the missing items from the first SAR. 

I will of course keep this thread up to date to the end in the hope it helps other.

Thanks again,

Chris

Redx

Ok , so the Penalty notice wording relates to the bylaws , which only the airport and not ukppo can issue or enforce !!  Plus the 6 month rule and contesting jurisdiction comes into the fray if you go down that route when a claim comes in ?

You will note that very few people used that aspect , one did and got his money back

The rest went down the contractual route for a parking charge notice , never mind POFA not applying due to bylaws and in your case no hirer or keeper liability due to no hire documentation , I assume that none were provided by any SAR ?

Thought not

Yes it's complicated but all you can do is play ping pong at LoC stage and muster your ammunition for any court claim in the future, so keep querying jurisdiction , unlawful added charges , no keeper liability , no landowner authority etc

If a court claim arrives , decide which of the 2 routes you are taking , contested jurisdiction or contractual small claims

Then use the info in previous cases to fight , bountyhunter put a lot of good stuff in that thread you can use

It's not our fault that it's a complicated legal matter and minefield , it's what happens due to bylaws on airports , on railway land , plus at ports too

NB , POFA cannot apply on non relevant land , but can be used to prove no keeper liability

Meanwhile , the replies to an LoC are the same or similar in all cases , so read the link I gave you and think about dealing with it as a reply only , not about what happened. You cannot tell me that all those numerous LBC threads by the 3 main legal entities doesn't tell you what to do in those hundreds of threads , the background is largely irrelevant in those too

If you are feeling overwhelmed , then ask yourself when have you ever seen a legal matter that was simple ?? On TV they string them out for an hour on legal programmes , both factual and fictional

chris0241

Thanks Redx! 
Yes bountyhunter has posted lots of great info...!
If only it was just a 1 hour TV show, I've spent all day reading the MSE and Pepi forums and learnt lots!
They provided the rental agreement in the original SAR, showing the 'customer' name. I assume that's the keeper? Multiple drivers were insured on the rental. 
I have already had a response to today's SAR for additional info/evidence saying that the matter was closed when they dealt with it in July and they have no further data on me. Parking machine logs are not personal info so that was declined. 
I'm sending a letter now notifying that alleged byelaw offences should be brought before a magistrate within 6 months. Do they have a right to change to a civil offence?
Chris

Redx

Good questions , that only a judge can answer , bearing in mind read the over 20 results posted in the Bountyhunter thread , which seem to indicate failures by the claimant in most or all cases

You can ask for redacted logs , if they fail to provide them they cannot ambush you in court , ditto with CCTV evidence , it has to be produced beforehand , or not used at all !

Yes you are the keeper and hirer because you signed the hire contract , doesn't prove that you were driving

They have to prove their case , legally , evidentially , lawfully , or fail. The landowner contract is one stumbling block , as are the bylaws , as are the documents and pictures and data etc

They have to prove there is a parking contract agreed by both sides , the claimant and the driver , that it's not a penalty , that it is brought under civil law and not bylaws

A lot of hurdles for them , a legal minefield , so not surprising that most of those in the WhatsApp group won

This is true in all cases with airports , railways and ports

So read some of the recent VCS cases and Brighton airport , to see those arguments in play

Timeouts

They are pushing their luck ......such old claims ?   Covid has turned these parking companies into desperate dan's for money
BWLegal take on these old cases and fake it right from the start by adding £60 which is unlawful.
See what the courts do to BWLegal for fakery .....
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

Reply to the LBC and ask what everyone else does ...... "what is their legal authority to add £60"
BWLegal have never explained this, to the motorist or a judge.  They rely on a very feeble excuse that the code of practice allows them to add fake amounts.

Whether they reply or not does not matter, the judge can ask the same question to establish if they have a reliable claim ...... hence the link above

nosferatu1001

Dont ask if they can, yo know they cannot swap froma n alleged criminal offenceover to a civil parking charge. Two totally different things. 
Tell them you know they cannot do so, and if they try to raise a fraudulent money claim you will formally Apply to the court for it to be struck out, and you will obtain an order agsinst them for your costs. AS this is not allocated to any track, this order will include your uncapped costs spent dealing. 

Castle

chris0241 said:

They replied at the time telling me they had "carefully considered" my evidence and rejected the appeal for the following (looked like copy/paste) reasons:
* The vehicle was stationary on double red line causing an obstruction to the car park entrance (it wasn't). They said there's no requirement for a driver to leave their car in order to define 'parking' and referenced Strong vs Dawtry (1961). 

* They are in possession of "full CCTV footage that clearly identifies the driver and a copy is available on request" (they ignored my request for it at the time). 
* "As the land is subject to byelaws and the penalty was issued under byelaws and not contract law the Protection of Freedom Act does not apply and the registered keeper is held liable"
* Penalties are not issues to drivers who merely pause to read the warning signs, only when a vehicle stops and loads/unloads.

Something else to "bear in mind", you're not the Registered Keeper.

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, sometimes it can lead to cancellation.,

chris0241

Castle said:

chris0241 said:

* "As the land is subject to byelaws and the penalty was issued under byelaws and not contract law the Protection of Freedom Act does not apply and the registered keeper is held liable"
* Penalties are not issues to drivers who merely pause to read the warning signs, only when a vehicle stops and loads/unloads.

Something else to "bear in mind", you're not the Registered Keeper.

Someone told me on either MSE or Pepi forums yesterday that the customer on the rental agreement WAS the registered keeper.
However to issue a civil (parking) offence instead of a criminal (byelaw) offence, they must chase the DRIVER.
 I'm confused now!