BW legal - Letter of Claim

busenthusiast

Hi everyone

I’ve read the newbies thread and came across a very similar thread by @rowdyargus. 

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6196988/bw-legal-parking-and-property-management-letter-before-court

docdroid.net/NGYamAa/bwlegal1-pdf (can't post links as I had to create a new forum account  )

I’ve a similar LBC from BW legal and deadline to respond is 30 October. The alleged contravention is ‘Parking in a No Parking Area’ and they've added the £60 ‘Initial legal costs’.

I got the landowner to email Parking and Property Management instructing them to cancel the PCN as I had following instructions was issued a parking permit by the concierge and was directed to park near to the residential building so I could unload. PPM's response was to contact BW legal direct.

My other arguments are that the signage is inadequate and contradicting. The sign says vehicles are permitted displaying a parking permit in front windscreen and parked fully in a marked bay – but upon searching the area there are no clearly marked bays.

PPM argued that because I obtained a permit I must therefore been aware of the parking restrictions.

I’ve sent off my SAR.

I'm going include the Abuse of Process judgement in my response and telling them to put my case on hold.

Thanks for any help you can provide!

Johnersh

OK so your property? Your tenancy almost certainly includes rights to pass and repass over common areas. Jopson v Homeguard is the relevant case for loading and unloading. It would be ridiculous if a service which is ostensibly provided for your benefit operates de facto to inhibit your property rights and convenience. 

Obviously the letter from the landlord specifically instructing them NOT to pursue is a withdrawal of the authority the parking company will claim to have under contract to sue you. In short they can bog off. I have no doubt that the ppc would also have issued a ticket for failure to display a permit - they can't have it both ways. 

busenthusiast

No I don't live on the estate.
Yes exactly my thoughts - they could have done me for both

Johnersh

Best you post details of any relevant signs, the road markings/circumstances for good measure.  Are you a mate of the owner or simply a supplier doing a delivery round etc. 

Some ppcs get hung up on double yellows, but those permit loading and unloading, so say nothing of the actual authority you were given. 

busenthusiast

Shall do. The signage wording says "parking is permitted for vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within the front windscreen and parked fully within the contents of a marked bay".
I'm a friend of the tenant dropping off goods.
Where I was parked there are no double yellow lines, it's all pavement

beamerguy

Well, you are aware of Abuse of Process
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

However as BWLegal have never proven the fake £60 is legal, be aware that Judges, whilst they will take notice, will not normally dismiss the case as they did. BUT, knowing that the fake £60 is added, they have the autonomy to dismiss the case for other reasons, mainly the signage or any other reason you may care to bring up.
This does not mean the judge will not deduct the fake claim, most will.
For BWLegal claiming the £60 is a legal cost is a feeble attempt of Double recovery.  

This is how the courts are handling BWLegal claims and is no doubt due to BWL appealing judgements and wasting the courts time.  Their mention of the Salisbury case is just a damp squib that actually means nothing and easy to defeat

In a nutshell, abuse of process is not the magic key but incorporate it plus all the other points which will give a judge a way to dismiss the case anyway.

Still no harm asking BWL their legal authority to add £60, they have none and only rely on nonsensical stuff regarding the code of practice.  The code does say they can add debt collection fees but as the code is only for PPC's such rubbish forms no contract for the motorist.  What the code does not mention is "Initial legal costs"

If they continue to court, their claim will change to debt recovery (as they do).  If the claim still says "Initial legal costs", the claim allows £50 legal costs and not a further £60 fake add-on. That is double recovery which in turn is abuse of process