Parking & Property Management and BW Legal harassing me!

BWLegalParkingScam

Whilst I wait for a reply from BW Legal, I just wanted to check if it was possible for Person C to represent me in court if it gets to that stage?

They are based in the UK, so BW Legal will happily transfer liability to them even though they are not the driver. But not sure if BW Legal or P&PM will be able to take them to court or if they will come back after me.

KeithP

BWLegalParkingScam said:

They are based in the UK, so BW Legal will happily transfer liability to them even though they are not the driver.

Not sure that BWL are able to choose any arbitrary person to sue and I can't be bothered to read back and rediscover who 'person C' is.

What I can say is that, should this case proceed to trial, the Defendant can be assisted by either a Lay Representative or McKenzie Friend. Google them to find out the what the different roles are.

fisherjim

They will take either the keeper or the driver of the vehicle to court the only way for person C to be involved would have been for them to admit to being the driver IMO

Mouse007

Could not person C be a witness? prepare a short witness statement and attend to give evidence? It was my parking space and Person B had my permission to park in it sir.

Coupon-mad

Yes they could.

But I suspect this will be cancelled.  They certainly can't lawfully proceed against you.

BWLegalParkingScam

I haven't heard back from BW Legal about the email I sent them. I did call them up again and now have a recording of them saying that they will only accept a UK serviceable address to transfer liability. They refused to send it in writing over email because they apparently don't have the ability to send emails but said that they would send it in a few days if I sent the complaint to a different email address.

What do you think is the best next step?

Coupon-mad

They don't have the ability to send emails?! I have emails from them.

Every person who receives a WS from that lot gets the bundle by email!

Please can you put the recording on Youtube after removing the ID and names at the start if the recording, and link it here?

We need to collect evidence of DRAs and roboclaim firms allegedly lying or misleading consumers. Need this sort of stuff for Government.

Also send the complaint to that different email address and point out that it is unlawful to insist on a UK service address under POFA.  If the driver isn't domiciled in the UK them that address is still serviceable.

BWLegalParkingScam

Coupon-mad said:

They don't have the ability to send emails?! I have emails from them.

Every person who receives a WS from that lot gets the bundle by email!

Please can you put the recording on Youtube after removing the ID and names at the start if the recording, and link it here?

We need to collect evidence of DRAs and roboclaim firms allegedly lying or misleading consumers. Need this sort of stuff for Government.

Also send the complaint to that different email address and point out that it is unlawful to insist on a UK service address under POFA.  If the driver isn't domiciled in the UK them that address is still serviceable.

The person on the phone said they do not have the ability to send emails and that the emails go to a different department. I haven't uploaded the recording yet, but I have had a reply to my email complaint. Here is their reply below.

Good Morning
 
Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.
 
Please find the relevant evidence, attached. This folder is password protected with the vehicle registration involved – all capitals, no spaces.
 
Our Client's cause of action is that you breached the Terms and Conditions of the contract which you entered into by parking your vehicle in the car park, by not displaying a valid permit.
 
Our Client is pursuing you as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
 
The vehicle was observed at <REDACTED> on <REDACTED>. The vehicle was observed by the Parking Attendant at <REDACTED>.
 
Upon entering the Car Park, the signage in situ (i.e. the "offer") made clear the terms and conditions associated with parking on the private land. By your action of entering the Car Park, and remaining there in excess of the grace period, it is our Client's position that your actions were tantamount to an acceptance of the terms and conditions. It is our Client's position, therefore, that you did enter into a contract with our Client, and are therefore liable for any consequences of breaching the same. If you did not agree to the terms and conditions, you should have vacated the Car Park within the grace period. You evidently did not do this, and therefore our Client is satisfied that you remain liable for the PCN.
 
The signage in situ states: ‘Private Land, Enforcement in operation 24 hours, Parking is permitted for: Vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within the front windscreen and parked fully within the confines of a marked bay. By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above, you the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms, You agree to pay consideration in the form of a ‘parking charge’ in the sum of £100….Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the charge.’
 
Please find an image of the signage, taken on the date in question, attached.
 
You previously appealed this matter and your appeal was subsequently rejected. You then provided the details of the driver of the vehicle at the date of contravention, which our Client accepted and attempted to transfer liability to the named individual. Our Client did not receive a response from this individual and as a result, reverted liability back to yourself and continued to pursue you as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
 
Our Client is unaware of whether this individual was the driver on the date of contravention and no supporting evidence was provided to confirm this individual was in the UK at the time of the contravention, such as a boarding passes. As no response was received from this individual, we would suggest you contact them to find out why. As our Client is entitled to pursue you as the Rgeistered Keeper of the vehicle, they are doing so. If you believe this individual is responsible for this matter, we suggest you contact them directly to ascertain why they failed to contact our Client and make payment.   
 
It is not necessary under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, to provide a UK serviceable address, merely a serviceable address. However, as our Client’s attempt to transfer liability was fruitless from the details provided, they are not obliged to do this a second time. Our Client confirmed this within their correspondence dated <REDACTED>.
 
We note that you have contacted your chosen Member of Parliament and can confirm we will be happy to liaise with them regarding this matter, provided we hold a signed statement of authority for them to discuss this matter with us and act on your behalf.
 
Should you have any queries please contact our office on 0113 487 0432, or alternatively sign in or register on our Online Customer Portal at www.bwlegal.co.uk.

The evidence they've attached only includes communication with me. There is no letter included that attempted to contact the driver. The driver has contacted them by email after their arbitrary deadline and they have chosen to ignore this. Technically this is before proceedings, so they should still accept the transfer as it isn't a second attempt to attempt the transfer as they state.

Coupon-mad

Jeez that is utterly appalling.

There is no right to pursue the rk once the name and address of the driver is known.  How dare they apparently misstate the law to you?

Quote the relevant part of Schedule 4 back at them - about the (limited and caveated) right to keeper liability - and copy in your MP and say you will be reporting them (BW Legal) to the SRA and them and their client to the ICO, if they continue to process your data unlawfully. A parking firm cannot 'revert' to a keeper. This is atrocious.

BWLegalParkingScam

Coupon-mad said:

Jeez that is utterly appalling.

There is no right to pursue the rk once the name and address of the driver is known.  How dare they apparently misstate the law to you?

Quote the relevant part of Schedule 4 back at them - about the (limited and caveated) right to keeper liability - and copy in your MP and say you will be reporting them (BW Legal) to the SRA and them and their client to the ICO, if they continue to process your data unlawfully. A parking firm cannot 'revert' to a keeper. This is atrocious.

What do you think of my reply below?

Thanks for confirming that the name and address of the driver is known to you. The driver has been cc'ed in this email and has confirmed with evidence that they have reached out on the <REDACTED>. I see no reason as to why I should pursue the driver, given that you have since established contact with the driver.

There is no right to pursue the Registered Keeper once the name and address of the driver are known. Stating that you are "reverted liability" back to the keeper is unlawful, as the name and address of the driver are known. You have shown time and time again that you have not followed this rule and insist on unlawfully pursing the Registered Keeper.

See below, as mentioned in POFA:

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    (2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—

        (a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

    (b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

I have no choice but to report you to the SRA, and report you and Parking & Property Management to the ICO if you continue to process my data unlawfully.