ParkingEye Letter Before Claim & BWLegal Letter Of Claim

milo_2020

I have referred back to picture I took a couple months back which shows the sign and the supermarket sign which says:
"SHORT STAY PARKING 30 MINUTES TIME LIMIT, [SUPERMARKET] accepts no liability for any injury, damage or theft incurred in this car park.".

I am going to pop down there to grab a 'full view' picture tomorrow as I suspect nothing has changed. Additionally its worth noting that this isn't really a car park as such, it is on the side of a main road and you can pull straight into a space from the main road. 

Any other suggestions or has everything been too messy my side? Very frustrating as it seems my partner is one to 'just pay it' so has no sense of importance - the only reason it wasn't paid was the sector she's in (care) doesn't pay you enough!!

milo_2020

Redx said:

milo_2020 said:

@Redx I don't see what you mean about snooze you lose, we have sent SAR request to both to obtain all their data, NPE did not respond, ParkingEye responded within 7 days and used the template and the privacy form as the newbies sticky said.

@Umkomaas Yes, I agree with you as that being more of the problem, I am just concerned because I don't have the BW Legal letter in front of me any more so I cannot recall or reference what it says... additionally NPE have responded to SAR request.

The parking eye one should have been landowner complaint at the time , if not the supermarket then the retail park management , plus a prompt appeal to parking eye , plus an appeal to Popla.

If all that was done and failed , the PE will most likely issue a court claim as Umkomaas said , so the more serious of the two

If those procedures were not followed. , So snoozed , the the victim is likely to lose

So prompt action was required at the time , no snoozing

The second NPE one should have followed a similar route , definitely a landowner complaint and initial appeal

Burying heads in sand does not help

Any court cases are likely from 2021 onwards , where the ability to pay or not does not enter into it

A typical loss to Parking Eye in court is £175 , the other one £200

Non payment  of a court loss would give a CCJ for 6 years against the victim

There would be no CCJ on file if it was paid right? She doesn't have the funds but I can prepare for them and would rather them loose money as well as myself, what is the suggestion in this instance? I am very frustrated about it all and how it was handled by her, however the secondary one (non-patron) was appealed from the moment it came through the door, I came on here and referenced the newbies and other forum posts as I previously have done before.

The ParkingEye one, it actually is referenced on this forum in a few posts and a lot of replies are the same (find the landowner) but the OP's of the threads still had difficulty finding the landowner...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5970483/parkingeye-clone-rd-clacton

beamerguy

You are dealing with two different types here, one of them, Parking Eye will say it as it is and issue a no nonsense claim and as you have a letter before claim, it is wise to respond although you do not complete any financial forms,
Your job is to give doubt to PE to a degree that they doubt themselves going to court.
Parking Eye do win, they also lose and there is a famous case about overstaying where is cost PE a £grand.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/aug/26/parking-eye-takes-on-top-barrister-85-fine

In that case, Mr Bowen is top barrister, (in legal terms, not a coffee maker)  Mr Bowen carried a higher status than a county court judge ..... that's how our system works ??
However there is no reason in your case why a judge would not just dismiss the case
Money wise with court costs you would be looking at about £180 ish

Now the second one is BWLegal and you now hit the bottom of the pile

National Enforcement LTD .... we know, not the smartest page in the book.
You say they have sent you pictures of leaving the site from CCTV.   
CCTV is very doubtful and more like a warden with a camera.
As Umkomaas says above, a very difficult point to prove and must be considered as a predator.

It would be very childish for BWL to think that because your lady was carrying a different named bag ?  Most of us now use a "bag for life" and can be purchased everywhere. Meaning you could go to Asda with your bag which was purchased in Tesco.   GETTING THIS SO FAR ?

BWLegal rely on fake information and in turn add fake amounts such as £60 to their claim.
BWLegal are easily beaten because of fakery and complete LACK of knowledge

See what happens to BWLegal here and whilst they continue their fakery, it will continue

 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1  

nosferatu1001

Google

Ring the council NDR to see who pays the rates 

Redx

So now you tell us !!!😤😤😤

If you have posted 2 threads previously , then you should have added to each one separately and not started a new thread making us phish for information as if it's like getting blood from a stone

For me there are no suggestions , it is for you or her to decide what to do , as adults

Our role is to provide the OP with facts , then that OP decides what to do

Also , because we do not know the full facts in each case , nobody can determine what to do

We have not see signs , or paperwork like NTK , or more importantly landowner authority contracts etc , so too many unknowns , especially the last item

You are expecting far too much from too little , sorry to say

I have no axe to grind , but you should let this thread die and update the other two , for clarity and continuity

milo_2020

beamerguy said:

You are dealing with two different types here, one of them, Parking Eye will say it as it is and issue a no nonsense claim and as you have a letter before claim, it is wise to respond although you do not complete any financial forms,
Your job is to give doubt to PE to a degree that they doubt themselves going to court.
Parking Eye do win, they also lose and there is a famous case about overstaying where is cost PE a £grand.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/aug/26/parking-eye-takes-on-top-barrister-85-fine

In that case, Mr Bowen is top barrister, (in legal terms, not a coffee maker)  Mr Bowen carried a higher status than a county court judge ..... that's how our system works ??
However there is no reason in your case why a judge would not just dismiss the case
Money wise with court costs you would be looking at about £180 ish

Now the second one is BWLegal and you now hit the bottom of the pile

National Enforcement LTD .... we know, not the smartest page in the book.
You say they have sent you pictures of leaving the site from CCTV.   
CCTV is very doubtful and more like a warden with a camera.
As Umkomaas says above, a very difficult point to prove and must be considered as a predator.

It would be very childish for BWL to think that because your lady was carrying a different named bag ?  Most of us now use a "bag for life" and can be purchased everywhere. Meaning you could go to Asda with your bag which was purchased in Tesco.   GETTING THIS SO FAR ?

BWLegal rely on fake information and in turn add fake amounts such as £60 to their claim.
BWLegal are easily beaten because of fakery and complete of knowledge

See what happens to BWLegal here and whilst they continue their fakery, it will continue

 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1  

Thank you for your response, to me it seems the Bowen case was a 'making an example', this was in the middle of the first pandemic, there wasn't any means to make the additional £3 payment as shops stopped taking money. As long as it costs them money as well as me, I will at least get some satisfaction... however dumb that sounds. How should the response be? Send the forms blank with details but no expenditure? 

Yes I see your point re the bag, but unfortunately the CCTV is one of the most high security places in my area for some reason, you can actually see the other shop and they provided 8 (iirc) photos of car in space, passenger getting out of gar, passenger walking up to queue, passenger not walking into shop (they referenced the number of people in queue and said it would have been impossible for her to go in due to the line), passenger walking back to car, passenger getting in car. Not sure what I can post here but I am happy to post the response.

Thanks

milo_2020

Redx said:

So now you tell us !!!😤😤😤

If you have posted 2 threads previously , then you should have added to each one separately and not started a new thread making us phish for information as if it's like getting blood from a stone

For me there are no suggestions , it is for you or her to decide what to do , as adults

Our role is to provide the OP with facts , then that OP decides what to do

Aloso , because we do not know the full facts in each case , nobody can determine what to do

We have not see signs , or paperwork like NTK , or landowner authority contracts etc , so too many unknowns , especially the last item

You are expecting far too much from too little , sorry to say

I have no axe to grind , but you should let this thread die and update the other two , for clarity and continuity

Sorry, I communication is not right my side here, I had not made a thread for either until now, this is the first thread. I am just being overly cautious as I see a lot of people post things and people reply on here saying I would delete that as it provides too much info, how much can I share without the risk of them identifying me from here and it worsening the case?

Apologies

Redx

It won't cost Parking Eye money as such.  , They issue in house and do their own litigation , so are already paid

The court fees and legal costs are £75 , added to their £100 claim , making the amount you pay within a month after losing and they get their £100 NTK PCN claim paid by you too

Umkomaas told you that was the worrisome one , after you intimated it wasn't important

Redx

milo_2020 said:

Redx said:

So now you tell us !!!😤😤😤

If you have posted 2 threads previously , then you should have added to each one separately and not started a new thread making us phish for information as if it's like getting blood from a stone

For me there are no suggestions , it is for you or her to decide what to do , as adults

Our role is to provide the OP with facts , then that OP decides what to do

Aloso , because we do not know the full facts in each case , nobody can determine what to do

We have not see signs , or paperwork like NTK , or landowner authority contracts etc , so too many unknowns , especially the last item

You are expecting far too much from too little , sorry to say

I have no axe to grind , but you should let this thread die and update the other two , for clarity and continuity

Sorry, I communication is not right my side here, I had not made a thread for either until now, this is the first thread. I am just being overly cautious as I see a lot of people post things and people reply on here saying I would delete that as it provides too much info, how much can I share without the risk of them identifying me from here and it worsening the case?

Apologies

How can we know the 2 cases without the facts ?

I understand the caution but it's still like pulling hens teeth !!

You should have posted each case on a separate thread at the time !!

milo_2020

Redx said:

It won't cost Parking Eye money as such.  , They issue in house and do their own litigation , so are already paid

The court fees and legal costs are £75 , added to their £100 claim , making the amount you pay within a month after losing

Okay... so are you advising I just pay it now as its more than likely that we will loose because her head was buried in the sand on this one!! I just checked the SAR request response these are key points which will hopefully provide the blood from the stone:

• First letter was Parking Charge Notice, no notice to keeper
• Date of event: 27th July 2020, Date issued 30th July 2020
• Appeal sent via website, 4th August 2020
• Appeal rejected via email 18th August 2020 with POPLA details, this was not actioned 'head in sand' it seems.
• LBCCC 17th November 2020