Help needed Letter of claim issued from bw legal acting for nforce parking management ltd.

Beardrills

Hello everyone  I'm looking for some help / guidance with regards to a letter of claim that I've received from bw legal acting on behalf of nforce parking management ltd, as the registered keeper of a vehicle that received a parking charge notice as a result of overstaying in a private car park. We haven't responded to anything sent by firstly nforce, then trace debt recovery UK ltd and finally bw legaL.
        I'd ignored things because like most people I'm too busy with everyday life;  2 young children, a wife with a serious life limiting condition as well as working full-time so I didn't have the time or energy to entertain something that I basically saw as profiteering.
        The images that we received of our car were photos taken by an individual in the field where we parked, they had attributed an overstay of 12 minutes to these photos.
          We used the car park mid 2021. We took our baby, young child and dog for a day trip. The car park in question was a series of fields on the edge of a small town centre. On arrival we parked in what we believed was a suitable place but we're immediately told to move (it wasn't a restricted parking space), we explained our situation with the young children and pram but the person who seemed to be organising things was  only insistent that we moved and directed us onwards ( I believe that person is a listed as a director of the car park) . We were then directed to the periphery of the site to park up I explained that this wasn't a suitable spot to park to the person who parked us up, they didn't reply. I noted that the row parked before and after us were not placed as far to the edge of the site as we had been. The field was extremely uneven, the grass was v long it was suprising that it had not been mown as it was a busy bank hol weekend. The only areas approaching a smooth surface were the way marked tracks nearer the centre of the site such as where we had originally tried to park.
       Placing us there meant that we had to travel hundreds of metres across the site to the exit, across extremely uneven ground, and long grass. As a family on a day trip we had a lot of things to carry, our pram wasn't an all terrain one, I'd never knowingly of chosen to use it over such terrain it struggled with every rut and the journey off site was very difficult. On re-entering the car park one of the front wheels snapped off, it made the journey in the context of having a dog, young child, baby in a pram with  a wheel missing, and a partner who has to limit her exertions due to a life limiting condition across site almost Impossible I could never of foreseen how long it would take us to return to our car.
      As I understand it the basis of the parking charge is that you have entered into a contract with the car park by parking there, so surely at this point the car park becomes a service provider and is subject to the equality act. I can only feel that all service providers on this occasion failed to offer my partner and baby the minimum standards of provision which they should of been afforded as they both would clearly be covered under the equality act. Any lateness in exiting the car park which may or may not of occurred would of only been as a direct result of the inappropriate location we were made to park 
     The photos of the vehicle shown as evidence also clearly show the peripheral location that we were parked, the uneven surface, the length of the grass and the fact that at this point most other cars had left leaving ample empty space for anyone else who wanted to park, in fact the car park was only open for about another  hour and it being a Sunday most attractions in town had by then closed so people on the whole were leaving rather than arriving. Any possible overstay if it had occurred could of deprived the land owner of no more than the £1 we had paid under the maximum rate for the day, which bears no relation to what is being demanded.
     In addition 1 of the parties involved in this PPC has been sending correspondence to the RK at an address unrelated to the registration of the vehicle, (which is up to date).
     I apologise for the lengthy description but in for a penny and all that and would appreciate any help, like most people I don't really want to be spending time on something that I see as basically school bullies demanding money.
      The Letter of claim I've received states that if no payment or response is received by a date near the end of Feb then a claim will be issued against me in county court with no further notice.
       Again I will be grateful for any guidance on where I stand and how I should proceed, thankyou.

Redx

Follow the 2 pieces of advice in the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum in announcements , second post ( if the LBC gives 30 days notice and includes financial forms , do not fill in ) , if it's less than 30 days , it's a debt collector letter and follow post four ( ignore )

Complain about this saga to the landowner , plan A , trying to get a cancellation !! This is your best option , it ALWAYS is ! Do this anyway , regardless

Beardrills

The letter of claim does give 30 days notice. I've tried to find the landowner but it doesn't seem straightforward, I parked in fields so it's not easy to locate on land registry maps and the limited business who runs the car park (a separate entity from the 3 companies I've already listed ) doesn't seem to have any readily available contact details. I will look again at companies House 

Coupon-mad

Respond to the LBC and add in a question asking BW Legal why they are attempting to claim an extra sum for false 'debt recovery' costs that the Government has just sent a clear message about; i.e. such added sums are unsubstantiated and are not necessary or proportionate and are now banned.

This was on the BBC news and we had four new threads about it yesterday!

Read bargepole's thread.

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

Respond to the LBC and add in a question asking BW Legal why they are attempting to claim an extra sum for false 'debt recovery' costs that the Government has just sent a clear message about; i.e. such added sums are unsubstantiated and are not necessary or proportionate and are now banned.

I am surprised I keep having to point this out despite it being on the BBC news and us having four new threads about it yesterday! Read bargepole's thread.

This applies to all the dodgy legals.  Any reply will just be nonsensical but perfect to show a judge.  
A non reply is even better to show a judge

There is every chance the reply will say "they are allowed to because of the code of practice from the BPA/IPC.   ???   That is also nonsensical as government has now proven because ..GOVERNMENT HAS BANNED.such charges

Then we have DCBL who on old tickets, call it DAMAGES.???
That is a fabrication and a very feeble attempt to mislead the motoriist and the courts.
DAMAGES ..... that is an attempt of Double recovery which is abuse of process
Such added sums are unsubstantiated and are not necessary or proportionate 

We say ignore debt collectors because they are simply low life and powerless.
BUT they add £60/£70 as their charge.

So, breaking the rules of this forum, you can have some fun with these clowns.
The same reply as above is applicable . THE CHARGE IS BANNED ?

TIP .... if you do decide to have fun ..... email only, never phone them.

They may well say, the new code will not be enacted until next year. It is already the Law
Of course, any reply from debt collectors will be rubbish

We now await to see how the legals will respond ?  

Beardrills

Hi all thanks for your responses so far, I'm preparing to send a SAR to nforce parking management ltd and a letter to bw legal following the advice in the newbies old or new thread; small claims post. I'm struggling to ascertain who the landowner concerned is, the car park itself doesn't have any direct contact details I'm unaware of wether or not this business owns the fields in  question, I've contacted the land registry and they've informed me that this would not be a simple request but a back and forth search. Does anyone know what rights I have to gain this information from the parties involved; the car park, nforce and bw legal. Can I include this request in the SAR and letter to bw legal. What I want to know is the exact coordinates of the vehicle, Who is the owner of this location, wether there is an agreement in place with the landowner for all parties to proceed as they have including agreed grace periods and contact details of the landowner. I look forward to any advice.

Umkomaas

Does anyone know what rights I have to gain this information from the parties involved; the car park, nforce and bw legal. Can I include this request in the SAR and letter to bw legal.

Yep, I do. You have no rights at SAR stage, which relates purely to personal data they have/hold about you. Should it go to court, you might get some of the data then. 

SOME IDEAS ON DETERMINING WHO OWNS THE LAND 

1. Google searches

2. If a retail park, check on any signage which lists the on-site outlets

3. Ask retailers on the site if there is a managing agent

4. Ask retailers on the site to whom do they pay rent

5. Contact the local authority and ask who pays the non-domestic/business rate for the car park (some councils have a spreadsheet on their website)

6. Contact the local Valuation Office and ask if they know. They often have a website which might provide the information 

7. Contact The Land Registry and for around £3 they should be able to provide definitive detail (I see you're already underway with that)

8. If you haven't already done so, give us the name of the car park/site/location, we may have seen other cases there. 

Beardrills

Thanks the car park in question was Smith's Island car park, Bakewell Derbyshire. The vehicle wasn't parked in the hard standing car park area but in an overspill field. Can I still request the exact location as this may be considered information pertaining to myself. How can I verify that any times they have are accurate ? Out of curiosity why request pay and display machine records for the day in question.

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't try to find who owns the place, in this situation.  Better to send a robust response to BW Legal.

Include the sort of wording I suggested here, adapting it for BW rather than CIS:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79013418#Comment_79013418

Add more though.  Really robust stuff.  What you have described is disability discrimination because your wife's condition meets the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010 and disabled people will often need more time...particularly to cope with a potholed muddy overflow car park.  Was it a certain amount of time free or was it pay and display and you paid?

 Beardrills said:
 I'd ignored things because like most people I'm too busy with everyday life;  2 young children, a wife with a serious life limiting condition as well as working full-time so I didn't have the time or energy to entertain something that I basically saw as profiteering.  The images that we received of our car were photos taken by an individual in the field where we parked, they had attributed an overstay of 12 minutes to these photos.