Premier Parking Solutions Limited & BW Legal - 2016 - Another One Bites the Dust!

mixMZ

Just received WS from W legal

drive.google.com/file/d/1Yk43h-TMRKPIBtZUWR6lxmSvEa6Vrglw/view?usp=sharing

Very aggressive ,their contract with landowner looks quite doggy ,It does say it was in force for a minimum period of 36 months from 1st april 2014 which is not true as it must have been terminated earlier.

I sent complain to Savills believing they managed site and their response dated 01/Feb/2019 was:

"Many thanks for your email.

To my knowledge Savills have only been manging Totton Retail Park for and on behalf of the landlord for a period of a few years since the end of June 2016.

To my knowledge Savills did not have dealings with PPS and the site was transferred away from PPS when Savills began managing the site.

I apologise I can’t offer any further help although PPS may be able to advise who managed the scheme at the time, although I anticipate it will be a difficult matter to conclude if it related to April 2016."

I only have 28hrs to submit my ws ... stressful time.

Umkomaas

Can you put the claimant WS on Dropbox please?  The link you've posted requires me to log in to Google, not sure I want to be doing that. 

With the number of posts you have under your belt you should be able to post live links on the forum now. 

mixMZ

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a7s2i63pvq7dclb/BW WS.pdf?dl=0

mixMZ

Just wondering, if I take screenshots of below websites, would that be enough to prove that this Retail Park was sold to LondonMetric in 2014, and it has nothing to do with "The Osprey Limited Partnership" who is unknown in this case and is definitely NOT the site/land owner as claimed in presented contract  by BWLegal - 1. under Terms and Conditions

1. The Client is the owner of the site and / or entitled and authorised to enter into this agreement with the Company in respect of the provision of Pay & Display and enforcement services.

https://www.insidermedia.com/news/south-east/134199-retail-park-sold-9m-deal

http://stockfordanderson.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Southampton-Totton-Retail-Park.pdf

https://search-property-information.service.gov.uk/search/summary/lm0zzPVc_4LI8UQNHgmx1Q==&TwPgvgoNjALqsquh3J6LYQ==

https://search-property-information.service.gov.uk/search/summary/Jql0BEgfZNuCLNNU-CHQrg==&TwPgvgoNjALqsquh3J6LYQ==

https://search-property-information.service.gov.uk/search/summary/TLbQ6yb7j5dBfweYUX2rag==&TwPgvgoNjALqsquh3J6LYQ==

https://search-property-information.service.gov.uk/search/summary/Nji77Wn4shcbdZMmZrWsQg==&TwPgvgoNjALqsquh3J6LYQ==

Coupon-mad

Bump for others to see tomorrow.

beamerguy

BWLegal going to Southampton ?   The home court of abuse of process ?
They lost a case and appealed, they lost the appeal as well.
ALL THANKS TO THIS FORUM AND COUPON-MAD

BWLegal are very bitter about this forum and that is why they call you nonsensical and accuse you of copy and paste ?  The reality is that all parking claims are pretty much the same and what we see in your case, we have see this many times and is just another copy and paste from BWLegal.  You have a legitimate reason to search the internet and that is to get help.
Judges will take little notice as they will also search the internet ?
PLUS judges on the Southampton circuit will already know about this forum, infact there are judges who are forum members albiet they don't post.  JUST A FEEBLE ATTEMPT BY BWL

BWLegal tend to use the Supreme Court as a "get out of jail "card ?  Again in reality, the Supreme Court said this ....
"The main reason for the £85 charge was to meet the costs of enforcing the parking rules"
Not my words, you can watch the ruling on video 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78383337#Comment_78383337

At NO TIME did the Supreme court mention "contractual costs" or "debt recovery costs"
The Supreme court did say that the charge of £85 was fair and BWLegal state that the code of practice (BPA and IPC) says that £100 is the correct figure ?  This goes against the Supreme court ?

What BWLegal miss is the fact that the code of practice has nothing to do with any motorist and is only for parking companies. NOTHING in the code of practice is legally binding on the motorist.  The code of practice says that parking companies can add debt collector fees but they do not say anything about "CONTRACTUAL CHARGES"
THIS IS A FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO INCREASE THE PARKING CHARGE and is an attempt of double recovery which is in turn Abuse of Process

The BPA and IPC stating debt collection charges can be added goes totally against the Supreme Court ruling. In fact back in 2016 there were no extras in any code of practice

The judges at Southampton know all about this  and whilst they may not just dismiss the case for abuse of process, they will look deeper into the other issues such as landowner authoriy etc

All points above and those you have mentioned will all count for a Southampton judge to make the right decision for you

Get your costs schedule ready and do a CRIB Sheet for yourself setting out all your points so you don't forget anything

Castle

beamerguy said:

BWLegal going to Southampton ?   The home court of abuse of process ?
They lost a case and appealed, they lost the appeal as well.
ALL THANKS TO THIS FORUM AND COUPON-MAD

BWLegal are very bitter about this forum and that is why they call you nonsensical and accuse you of copy and paste ?  The reality is that all parking claims are pretty much the same and what we see in your case, we have see this many times and is just another copy and paste from BWLegal.  You have a legitimate reason to search the internet and that is to get help.

Which is quite funny because the signs they have included in their WS all show BPA AOS membership on them; (and the signs at pages 5 and 6 are not the same ones as those photographed by their own Patrol Warden).

beamerguy

Castle said:

beamerguy said:

BWLegal going to Southampton ?   The home court of abuse of process ?
They lost a case and appealed, they lost the appeal as well.
ALL THANKS TO THIS FORUM AND COUPON-MAD

BWLegal are very bitter about this forum and that is why they call you nonsensical and accuse you of copy and paste ?  The reality is that all parking claims are pretty much the same and what we see in your case, we have see this many times and is just another copy and paste from BWLegal.  You have a legitimate reason to search the internet and that is to get help.

Which is quite funny because the signs they have included in their WS all show BPA AOS membership on them; (and the signs at pages 5 and 6 are not the same ones as those photographed by their own Patrol Warden).

What will a Southampton judge think of that we wonder ??

mixMZ

its now sent to  

to:		disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk
cc:		hearings.southampton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e9fgf8fqshd74gw/WS_redaction final.pdf?dl=0

please dont give me a lot of grief for any mistakes or grammar errors, etc I done what I could and had no more time for this work, so it went as its posted here.

Time will tell....

D_P_Dance

please dont give me a lot of grief for any mistakes 

When dealing with these matters mistakes can be fatal.   Accuracy in legal disputes is a sine qua non.