Napier Parking - BW Legal - x3 PCNs

ref2468

Coupon-mad - thank you for this above. 

I was going to add specific details on this thread when it came to needing to write my defence but as I will reply to BWLegal now, to clarify;

I have been issued x3 PCNs from Napier Parking. Contravention Description on each PCN: “Failure To Clearly Display A Valid Ticket/Permit”:

1)    31st October – parked and subsequently paid for parking via phone on Ringo (£10 + 30p charge). Incident time on PCN 10.06am – paid the correct amount for the parking daily period (£10) albeit at 11.33am.

2)    6th November – we were in a mad rush this day as I had just found out my nan had suffered a stroke. We parked and rushed to get the train with our 2-year old. My intention was to again to pay via Ringo (unaware of the impending PCN on the 30th October at this stage), but with everything going on completely forgot until the following day. We saw my nan in hospital that afternoon thankfully but sadly it was the last time before she passed away soon after.

3)    7th November – the car was still parked and having realised the oversight, payment was made via Ringo on the 6th at 10.43am (£10 + 20p charge) for the daily charge. PCN issued at 10.14am. On the original appeal, Napier included the following in the text “We have checked our records and can see that a pay by phone session was purchased at 1043hrs, tickets must be purchased on arrival. On this occasion, as a gesture we have further reduced the settlement rate. Please find attached pictures. The driver agreed to the charge by leaving the vehicle parked.” They reduced the FCN from £60 to £30.

 

Each PCN followed through the post approximately a week later. Following the handover from Napier Parking to BWLegal, the cases from the 5th/6th November were consolidated but not the one on the 30th October. Each PCN is for £100 + £60 (so £480 total).

Napier Parking have provided a copy of the Ringo parking time(s) with one of the subject access request attachments but only for one (each PCN is attached separately).  

Coupon-mad – should I go back to BWLegal with your reply above about consolidating the PCNs but remove the final two paragraphs?

Coupon-mad

Certainly amend it to make sense.  The important thing is to tell them the stuff at the start about consolidating these alleged debts into a single claim.  It is astonishing that a legal firm think it is OK to tell a consumer that they will file two separate claims (an abuse of process) because - as I understand it - their client sent them as two case files.  Unbelievable!