PCN while in GF's allocated parking bay - permit slipped off dashboard

zimbo_ouen

nosferatu1001 said:

If it was agreed prior to the purchase, it must then be included in the new lease. 

Yeah definitely wasn't and not in the leasehold deed at all

zimbo_ouen

A little update for everyone - I am now in comms with both residents who beat Link Parking (using BW Legal) and am getting their case info, defence, case numbers etc to be able to present in my defence should it get that far. They all live in the same estate, probably the same lease for them all which will help me significantly.

Because the other 2 residents have done it, my girlfriend has also emailed the MC and Link to demand they do not "police" the space any further and they have a week to acknowledge which will not only help my defense again, but also to stop with their BS any further.

Let's see how things go...

zimbo_ouen

Hey everyone and hope you all had as good and safe a Christmas as can be and wishing you all the best for 2021 too. May it be a better year for everyone and everything!




So I've now received an NTK request. From what I could see on the newbies page I think it says to appeal with the template? But I've emailed them a few times now with lots of info and appealed already when I first had the "charge" stuck to the windscreen so should I still do this or just leave this now till I get a Letter of/before claim?

Le_Kirk

That looks like a reminder!

Coupon-mad

Looks like a paragraph 8 NTK to me (the first postal notice after a windscreen PCN). 

No point appealing except to look reasonable later, in court.   Go through the bent appeals process (including the kangaroo court of the IAS) with your eyes wide open, knowing it won't be cancelled unless you get a new year miracle (perhaps if Link have furloughed a lot of staff and can't be bothered with wasting time at IAS appeal stage and cancel it so they incur no IAS costs).  Always possible at the moment due to depleted staff at the scam firms.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Looks like a paragraph 8 NTK to me (the first postal notice after a windscreen PCN). 

Yep, now read it more closely.  Got as far as "we recently issued..........." and didn't finish the sentence!

zimbo_ouen

Hey everyone,
It's been a few months and now I've recently got a letter from BW Legal today - pretty sure I just ignore this for now but thought I'd share:


From what I've also read, no need for SAR or anything just yet either right? Just sit and hold tight?

Coupon-mad

Get a SAR if you haven't already.  It saves confusion at LBC/claim/defence stage later.

beamerguy

zimbo_ouen said:

Hey everyone,
It's been a few months and now I've recently got a letter from BW Legal today - pretty sure I just ignore this for now but thought I'd share:


From what I've also read, no need for SAR or anything just yet either right? Just sit and hold tight?

Just another nonsensical and feeble attempt to scam you by adding £60

"Their clients debt recovery costs" ....... BWLegal lose cases with this total rubbish 

As they have passed the buck to Link regarding this fakery, then ask BWL to ask Link what is their legal authority to add £60.  ?    Tell them to advise Link that their normal feeble excuse of "the code of practice allows them to" ..... is NOT a legal authority ??
THAT IS ABUSE PROCESS

And the EXCEL v WILKINSON is prime to get BWLegal spanked again in court

Don't be sucked in to pay them, if it goes to court ... you can claim your costs when you win

YES, send a SAR TO Link to provide the info they hold on you

D_P_Dance

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

and copy the correspondence to the SRA, it is time they put a stop to this deception by these bargain basement law firms.

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/instructing/your-right-to-complain/