Britannia/BW Legal (2 PCNs) LoC

Jetslick · 28 December 2018 at 6:00PM

Hi all, apologise if this is long but I've held back on making a thread until now. I am assisting someone in a Britannia/BW Legal case. The driver received a 'Letter of Claim' from BW Legal on 14 Dec 2018 for 2 PCNs for Britannia Parking Limited. Both letters state payment of £160.00 by 18 January 2019 to avoid legal action. Estimated cost breakdown totalled £241.79 (but x2 as 2 PCNs).

Background:
Date of contraventions are both a week apart in February 2018. The driver was about to go park my car at a Cineworld cinema until they learnt that from word-of-mouth and a news article that Cineworld's car park (owned by Britannia Parking) was not functioning properly as both the lights and machines were not working. Cineworld released a press statement advising customers to park elsewhere (article posted on same day as first contravention). Upon learning this, the driver used parkopedia to look to park elsewhere and discovered a free council-owned car park (after 6pm) relatively nearby. The driver chose to park there in the evening 8pm-11pm without purchasing a ticket as they was under the assumption it was free. They did this again a week after (same time). It was only 2 weeks after the first contravention (1 week after second) that the driver learnt this was a pay-to-display car park and the free one is literally on the other side of the road. Parkopedia doesn't even acknowledge a private car park here. Had the driver received a windscreen notice or informed sooner of the first contravention the second contravention wouldn't have happened as the driver hadn't known they were in any breach of a contract.

As a new driver at the time (both contraventions happened under a month of passing their test), the driver chose to park where there was empty space rather than the car park which had a good amount of cars. But it is now understood that the free availability was purely because of paid private vs public free car park. Had the driver known this, they obviously wouldn't have parked there (or else would've bought a ticket). The signage into the car park is abysmal and hidden behind bushes - which almost feels intentionally obscure when driving to it (stark contrast to the free-council park) and the lighting is bad too. There was no lighting at entrance of car park so any signs at entrance can be easily missed by a moving vehicle.

First contravention the driver appealed to Britannia admitting they was the driver but had not seen the signs. Found out this was a bad step to admit they was driving and it put me the. off attempting a POPLA as they felt they were making matters worse. Second contravention was ignored so no driver named.

When the driver got a LBC from BW Legal, they sent a SAR to Britannia to obtain all the data they have on this case. They said they included a picture pack to closest PCN date of signs but they didn't in any attachment. They sent an email back requesting this again, but to also date and time stamp the pictures, ideally trying to match the dusk time of apparent contraventions times and also requested a map layout of lighting and their relative positioning to signs.

Three questions:
1. Any case for a reasonable defence here?

2. What is the next step? I assume the driver now responds to BW Legal with LBC rebuttal 'asking for the information required under the PaP oct 2017. I've seen comments saying to look for other threads on this but cannot currently find an example (still searching). Also is there a deadline to this or just anytime before 18 January?

3. Also, is the AoS after the keeper receives a County Court claim from the court themselves and they don't do that just yet with Letter of Claim? That's my current understanding but just want to make sure I definitely understand the process before helping to working on their defence.

The_Deep · 28 December 2018 at 6:15PM

£242 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact fraud, non claimable debt collectors' scammer's add onssadd ons. Imo, this is highly unsolicitory behaviour.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

KeithP · 28 December 2018 at 6:18PM

To answer your questions...

1) Yes.

2) Your assumption is right. Respond anytime before the due date. You should also send, sooner rather than later, a Data Subject Access Request to Britannia as pointed out in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

3)If by AoS you mean Acknowledgement of Service, then that comes after you have received a County Court Claim Form.

Jetslick · 28 December 2018 at 6:30PM

Cheers for the reassurance, KeithP, and props to getting through that wall of text.

I did send Britannia an original SAR and they sent their privacy policy and data on both PCNs (including photos and all correspondence). They didn't include the picture pack despite saying, 'I have included the closest picture pack taken to the dates of the PCN’s.' So I replied requesting this again. I also informed BW Legal to stop data processing and put the case on hold (they sent a letter basically refusing).

Cheers again for the explanation on AoS. It just gets confusing with all the different court claim abbreviations and I've read about the 14 day limit so just wanted to ensure I was right that it isn't needed yet before any further missteps.

Umkomaas · 28 December 2018 at 9:00PM

I also informed BW Legal to stop data processing and put the case on hold (they sent a letter basically refusing).

Complain to the ICO so this can be bottomed out. We need to get chapter and verse from the horse's mouth. Regulars can't get the definitive statement from the ICO, as none of us have tickets to pursue (and none will get them unless it's a planned strategy - too wise to the scam!).

The sooner we get the full SP, the better advice we can dispense. Please help us.

Jetslick · 29 December 2018 at 2:46PM

Umkomaas wrote: »

Complain to the ICO so this can be bottomed out. We need to get chapter and verse from the horse's mouth. Regulars can't get the definitive statement from the ICO, as none of us have tickets to pursue (and none will get them unless it's a planned strategy - too wise to the scam!).

The sooner we get the full SP, the better advice we can dispense. Please help us.

Thanks for the advice.
This is the letter I am referencing:

Should I reply to BW Legal first or complain to Britannia that they have to stop data processing? or just file a complaint to ICO? And what grounds do I have to argue against them refusing to stop data processing?

Umkomaas · 29 December 2018 at 3:24PM

We've seen that before (and very similar to the one Gladstones issue).

You need to do the research on the ICO site/GDPR regulations/DPA around restriction of processing.

Once you're clear I would write to the ICO and ask whether they agree with the BWL position. You argue that time is not on your side to achieve all the information to assist your defence, given that there are only x days remaining for you to submit it, and as the PPC has a month in which to process the SAR you are concerned the are attempting to time you out, disadvantaging you in the process.

Then you point out that the Limitation Act provides the PPC with 6 years to pursue this case through the court meaning they have until xx/xx/20xx (the 6 year anniversary of your parking charge) in which to do so. On this basis there should be no justifiable reason for them not to temporarily suspend processing.

beamerguy · 29 December 2018 at 3:55PM

BWLegal has invited you to complain to the ICO
DO IT ?

At this stage of the game, BWLegal are losing money unless they work on below the minimum wage ???
Maybe they are doing the work for Britannia free.

If you win it will cost them a lot (no reason why you will not win). and if they win, they still will lose.

As they say ... "a fool and his money are easily parted"

Jetslick · 29 December 2018 at 7:02PM

Umkomaas wrote: »

We've seen that before (and very similar to the one Gladstones issue).

You need to do the research on the ICO site/GDPR regulations/DPA around restriction of processing.

Once you're clear I would write to the ICO and ask whether they agree with the BWL position. You argue that time is not on your side to achieve all the information to assist your defence, given that there are only x days remaining for you to submit it, and as the PPC has a month in which to process the SAR you are concerned the are attempting to time you out, disadvantaging you in the process.

Then you point out that the Limitation Act provides the PPC with 6 years to pursue this case through the court meaning they have until xx/xx/20xx (the 6 year anniversary of your parking charge) in which to do so. On this basis there should be no justifiable reason for them not to temporarily suspend processing.

Thanks for the guidance. Doing my research and writing up a draft complaint for the ICO now. Should I also send an email to BW Legal notifying them of this or just solely lodge the complaint to the ICO? Just concerned about how quick the ICO would operate and inform BW Legal of my complaint. I want data processing to be on hold until the PPC provides the photos of the signage - else I am not satisfied of the SAR they sent.

Just to give a breakdown of actions:

I sent Britannia a SAR on 03/12/2018.
I informed BW Legal on 06/12/2018 and to restrict data processing and to put the case on hold as I am still awaiting the SAR.
BW Legal send their 'Letter of Claim' on 14/12/2018.
BW Legal send the attached letter refusing to stop data processing on 18/12/2018, about my email 'which was received on 14 December 2018' (despite the email being sent on 06 December)
Britannia sent their SAR 24/12/2018 (on Christmas Eve).
On 27/12/2018, I inform Britannia they have not fulfilled their obligations in the SAR as they did not provide the picture pack that was requested and that they said they had (they definitely haven't).

Note: I also provided BW Legal an Address of Service which they have continued to ignored as I no longer reside at the address they keep sending their letters to - this causes further delays in processing my defence.

With that said, would it also be fair to note how BW Legal have refused my request to restrict data processing and won't put the case on hold despite delays in their PPC providing the SAR (21 days after request & 18 days after telling BW Legal) and how I'm still waiting for the correct data for the SAR during a busy festive period? Having a ticking clock for these things at this time is more stressful than usual. Will also mention to ICO of BW Legal's failure to cease communication by mobile number.

Jetslick · 29 December 2018 at 7:18PM

Is it also worth contacting Britannia Parking to inform their litigators BW Legal to stop data processing and put the case 'on hold' until all the obligations of the SAR has been met? Else should I threaten to lodge a complaint against them to the ICO too? I've got my own pictures of the signage and poor lighting at the car park but it is unfair for me to have to draft a defence under the pressure of time if they do not eventually provide the picture pack.

beamerguy · 29 December 2018 at 8:38PM

You know Jetslick, I think BWLegal are out of their depth with the great parking scam. They are more used to collecting proven debts and NOT the rubbish of these parking companies.

Since BWLegal has got involved, their name has been trashed on a google search, even trustpilot

Because they have ignored you over phone calls and the address for contact etc, they are now in breach of The Administration of Justice Act
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75234858#Comment_75234858
If they don't understand this, then you should advise the SRA of this and if they don't sort them out quickly, your next option is
complain directly to The Rt Hon David Gauke MP, Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/david-gauke/1529

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page

In the meantime, Britannia must reply to the SAR within 30 days and as they have instructed BWLegal, it is up to BWLegal to obtain the info you require or they will waste their time and lose in court.

So tell BWLegal some facts and if they continue to ignore you, more fool them.

As said, BWLegal are not only out of their depth, they behave like a back street loan shark

Britannia/BW Legal (2 PCNs) LoC

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free