BW LEGAL offered without prejudice offer on PCN - help for next steps.

Johnersh

I concur that the letter is not any form of contract or assignment.
1. It refers to the live parking company on the letterhead of the page, but it fails to meet company requirements as it states no registered address (the address is for the Manchester branch of mailboxes etc)
2. It refers in writing to a dissolved company
3. It is endorsed by Manchester science partnerships by an individual who is not a director of Manchester science partnerships Ltd, so we cannot be sure (strictly speaking) that this is not some other partnership
4. I'm not clear that the o/p has the original contract.

Even if the court might have assumed that the existence of signs created a suggestion that the claimant was authorised to run a parking scheme, the docs we do have are evidence of and by themselves that there are at the very least credible reasons to challenge any presumption that there is an enforceable contract in place. The ppc must now produce all written contracts to prove that. This was specifically raised in the defence and all you now have is an incomplete, contentious statement from a newly qualified solicitor (2020),  not clarity as to the factual position or even a statement from an employee of the claimant. 

kk1223

Johnersh said:

5. The charge applies only for breaches of the failure to display a permit (which is impossible in the o/p's case)
6. The charge is not for parking (ie as an alternative to displaying a permit). It is in fact a penalty for breach of contract terms - as evidenced by the wording "failure to comply. "

NB (6) is distinct from Beavis who didn't have a penalty clause as the fee was reasonable given he could've returned to his car earlier and had benefited from free parking). That doesn't fly where the signage places the o/p into an immediate breach of contract and then seeks to demand £100. 

Thanks for the helpful words.   I have read and referenced Pace V Lengyl and will attach to WS.   Does this mean it's not required to attach and reference ParkingEye Limited v Beavis – Extract of Paragraphs 98, 193, and 198? Since this is not to do with displaying a ticket and overstaying? I just wanted to double check as  I have referenced in relation to his in the Abuse of Process section of my WS taking some guidance from the WS example in the Newbies post. 

Umkomaas

You do need to reference Beavis in order to distinguish it, because in all probability the claimant will throw it into the mix as if it's the remedy for all parking charges - 'Beavis, innit, M'Lud'!

Fruitcake

I haven't been able to look at the whole of the WS because when I click on the link, it asks my permission for them to harvest and pass on my personal data.

The images of the signs are nothing of the sort. They are stock images from a file on a pooter.

Are there any images of the signs actually in situe at the site in the WS?

kk1223

Fruitcake said:

I haven't been able to look at the whole of the WS because when I click on the link, it asks my permission for them to harvest and pass on my personal data.

The images of the signs are nothing of the sort. They are stock images from a file on a pooter.

Are there any images of the signs actually in situe at the site in the WS?

Sorry didn't realise it asks you to do that.  No-- only the images which I've supplied above are the images on the WS

Umkomaas

kk1223 said:

Fruitcake said:

I haven't been able to look at the whole of the WS because when I click on the link, it asks my permission for them to harvest and pass on my personal data.

The images of the signs are nothing of the sort. They are stock images from a file on a pooter.

Are there any images of the signs actually in situe at the site in the WS?

Sorry didn't realise it asks you to do that.  No-- only the images which I've supplied above are the images on the WS

Why not host it on Dropbox?  I won't log into anything that suggests my personal data might be passed to anonymous third parties. 

kk1223

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qegmimta7dxqay4/ws2.pdf?dl=0
did this work?

Le_Kirk

kk1223 said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qegmimta7dxqay4/ws2.pdf?dl=0 did this work?

Yep, that's fine.

nosferatu1001

In case you missed the relevance op

theybe not shown the court copies of the ACTUAL contract.  Just a simple pdf. That isn't what was on site, in any way shape or form. 

Coupon-mad

Usual load of legal argument irrelevant twaddle (particularly the weak attempt to debunk the CRA 2015) and no real facts.  Not a WS at all, really.

Interesting that they argue they incurred costs due partly to undertaking a Trace with Equifax. Ohhh big wow.  That cost all of 40p:

https://www.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/g-cloud/services/513192491023580