BW Legal / Link Parking Court Summons on Resident Parking Permit Land (I have a Permit!)

Coupon-mad

It’s not called double dipping if they try to inflate a claim. Your defence says what it is - double recovery - and that point has NOTHING to do with the Beavis case.

marketsqhero

Coupon-mad said:

It’s not called double dipping if they try to inflate a claim. Your defence says what it is - double recovery - and that point has NOTHING to do with the Beavis case.

Then why this section in the template?
 "Costs must already be included in the parking charge rationale if a parking operator wishes to base their model on the ParkingEye v Beavis case and not a damages/loss model. This Claimant can't have both."

Coupon-mad

Because they all base their charges on the Beavis model, not a damages/loss model.  So the point is, no PPC can add fake costs.

marketsqhero

Update:

Case went in the favour of Link Parking. Judge disagreed that that the clause in the contract precluded them from assigning a 3rd party to manage the claim, he also stated that as I did not appeal using the appeals process it did not reflect favourably.

He told them they could not charge recovery costs but could have fixed amounts and the original penalty costs so the claim was reduced by £100.

You win some, you lose some

beamerguy

marketsqhero said:

Update:

Case went in the favour of Link Parking. Judge disagreed that that the clause in the contract precluded them from assigning a 3rd party to manage the claim, he also stated that as I did not appeal using the appeals process it did not reflect favourably.

He told them they could not charge recovery costs but could have fixed amounts and the original penalty costs so the claim was reduced by £100.

You win some, you lose some

Shame but as the judge deducted the fake £60, nobody really won.  

Saying that as you did not use the appeals service .... did not reflect favourably

The judge was indeed ignorant even thinking an appeals service would work.   This is the current problem with many judges who have gone blind to reality ?

I also think that some judges are running scared especially with the recent appeal case as seen here

D_P_Dance

Saying that as you did not use the appeals service .... did not reflect favourably

The appeals service isbfa4r from fair, and the adjudicators are poorly trained and often unfamiliar with the law.  The appeal system is funded by the industry.   Had you have argued thusly you might have had a different result.  

marketsqhero

D_P_Dance said:

Saying that as you did not use the appeals service .... did not reflect favourably

The appeals service isbfa4r from fair, and the adjudicators are poorly trained and often unfamiliar with the law.  The appeal system is funded by the industry.   Had you have argued thusly you might have had a different result.  

I did argue the point as to why I didn't bother with the appeal service as it's a complete waste of time and effort on my part for a default "appeal rejected" but it fell on deaf ears

Fruitcake

It's called judge bingo.

I'm sorry you lost, but you cannot be faulted for the effort you put in. I doubt the PPC will have made much if any any money on this, so well done anyway.

marketsqhero

Maybe a daft question, but what happens now? Nothing was said at the end of the call. Will I receive a another letter from BW Legal with details of what to pay and when by?

Coupon-mad

1. Ring BW Legal and pay.

2. come back here each week and do the final new Government Consultation as I keep posting about. That is VITAL!