Claim Form Received BW Legal for Unauthorised Entry/Parking

patient_dream

"The statement appears to have been cut and paste from websites containing parking forums aiming ti assist motorists contesting parking charges on variety of pre-determined basis as witnessed by solicitor on regular basis and one frequently used forum can be found on"

Standaed BWLegal junk ... totally nonsensical. Judges don't take any notice of this rubbish ... they work on evidence. Such a statement is very childish and pathetic and makes BW;egal look stupid

brandsoda

Jenni_D said:

Dropbox is an individual thing - there is no community Dropbox location; at least not for this forum.

thanks    and Yes, I am aware but I just checked if any one already in use for this forum.
I am sharing a public link 

brandsoda

Fruitcake said:

Please show us the claimant's WS. Redact all personal data, but leave in anything already in the public domain.

Upload it to Dropbox or similar and post the link here. It would be especially useful for us to see the alleged landowner contract. Make sure the dropbox account is not in anyone's real name, does not need a password or a requirement to give permission to use viewers' personal data, and does not include anything personal.
I kid you not, one poster used a personal account that included holiday snaps of their children.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2q9eei1fjj07jev/Site_specification_Agrrement.pdf?dl=0

@Jenni_D @D_P_Dance.  @Fruitcake @KeithP @Coupon-mad

brandsoda

patient_dream said:

"The statement appears to have been cut and paste from websites containing parking forums aiming ti assist motorists contesting parking charges on variety of pre-determined basis as witnessed by solicitor on regular basis and one frequently used forum can be found on"

Standaed BWLegal junk ... totally nonsensical. Judges don't take any notice of this rubbish ... they work on evidence. Such a statement is very childish and pathetic and makes BW;egal look stupid

you are right, in today's world while every information is available on internet, many cases are getting solved based on Social media foot prints and this rubbish argument that Defendants are using forum and websites shouldn't be accepted..

this is in skeleton filed by claimant 


there is another para added for MSE against claimed cost 

Jenni_D

Page 3 of that document is almost completely unreadable. Did they send it like that? (As it stands it shows no capability of being a lawfully-engaged contract. I'm sure @Fruitcake will be along with some advice).

Edit: just search for the word nonsensical in this board. That skeleton is a load of rubbish given that their WS is a template anyway. 🙄 As a judge once said in a case, when the claimant's legal raised this point... "So what?"

brandsoda

Jenni_D said:

Page 3 of that document is almost completely unreadable. Did they send it like that? (As it stands it shows no capability of being a lawfully-engaged contract. I'm sure @Fruitcake will be along with some advice).

Yes @Jenni_D, it's exactly the way in WS shared to me. there is nothing readable at page 3, even page number is missing , so I doubt if that the original copy of the page 3.

Fruitcake

Precisely my thoughts. P3 is not page 3 of the service agreement. It is in a completely different format, different "paper" type, different dates, and does not have its own unique page number. The bottom date appears to have been overwritten by another date as well.

I'll have a more detailed look tonight and post my thoughts later.

Fruitcake

I have sent you a pm.

Castle

Reading paragraphs 5 and 7 of the "agreement" would suggest that the PPC is only authorised to manage the public parking area of the car park where 2 hours parking is allowed: there's no mention of the "permit holders only" car park.

Fruitcake

For clarification, and to save having to read back through: -

In your first post from May 2021 you say the alleged event occurred in November of the previous year, in other words, November 2020. 

Please confirm this to be the case. Please also tell us if there was a windscreen ticket, and the date of the NTK, and whether the NTK and/or their WS includes date stamped photos of your car.

Things I have noticed so far.

The images all show dates in 2017 and. Are there any images of signs at the time of the alleged event?

P1 The Site Specific Agreement pursuant to Facilities Management Services Framework Agreement (lets refer to that as FMSFA) CBRE. 
What appears to be a document page number, 1, is at the bottom.

(Lets refer to these agreements as the SSA and Framework Agreement)

P2      Agreement is between SDI (Hounslow) Ltd Company No 10086218 (Landlord) acting through its Managing Agent CBRE Limited and Premier Park Limited.

(A)       Landlord is the owner of the premises. In other words, SDI (Hounslow) Ltd is allegedly the landowner.

1.1  Says this agreement ... shall comprise the SSA between landowner and operator.

(a) Refers to the Framework Agreement between the managing agent and operator, dated 10th March 2015.

Now here's the interesting part. According to Companies House records, the landowner, SDI (Hounslow) Ltd, company number 10086218, were not incorporated until the 29th of March 2016, over a year after the Framework Agreement was allegedly agreed.

You should definitely challenge that point. How could CBRE have been acting for the landowner a year before the landowner was incorporated as a business? There may of course be a perfectly reasonable explanation, but you want to ask the hired gun on the day about it.

I'll post more when I've had a deeper dive.