Parking Charge Notice - myparkingcharge.co.uk

I can confirm that I received a notice to Keeper on the day of the incident. I was advised to appeal by the warden which I did before reading on here.

You wouldn't get a Notice to Keeper on the day - it would be a Notice to Driver (windscreen ticket, or handed to you by the parking drone).

A Notice to Keeper is received through the post - but why did you get that if you appealed immediately on getting the NtD. Is there just one parking charge you are dealing with?

Was there any admission in your appeal as to who the driver was?

Please find a photo of the BW Legal letter attached. The letter came with an accompanying letter from VCS.

That hasn't worked - you can't post images direct to the forum as a newbie. This is how you do it.

To upload a photo/scan link, you first need to host it on a free photo hosting site (like Dropbox, Imurg or Tinypic), copy the URL, paste it here, but change the http to hxxp and we'll do the conversion. Newbies can't directly upload links to photos/scans until they've got a few posts under their belt.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

halexis91 wrote: »

Sorry Keith I'm so bad at this...can you direct me to a board guide that can merge the threads?
Also does it appear as though the letter I uploaded is in fact a letter before claim?

Crabman, savvy or soolin. Bottom r/h corner of the forum thread list, one page back from this one. Just click on one of their names then click 'Send Message' and then write your request.

private car park in Leeds city centre.

I think Lamilad might know that City better than me.

I would send a robust signal to BW Legal that you are not a pushover.

This is the sort of letter that (in my opinion) I would be happy for a Judge to see, even with the words 'dross' and 'drivel'. It includes some stuff you would want a Judge to read and know about when reading your case before a hearing (we see people win 99% of them - BW Legal ones being particularly easy).

Change it if it's not your writing style but no ''thank you for your letter''...they aren't worth it.





Dear BW Legal,

Re PCN xxxxxxxx (your ref xxxxxxxxxx)

I refer to your computerised letter.

I won't be web-chatting with you nor 'working with you'. Don't patronise me. I do not have 'an account' with your client who has no consumer customers and does not carry out any form of parking management as their primary agenda, in the way their hapless landowner clients are led to believe.

Nor am I fooled by your baseless threatogram dross telling me your actions might affect my employability, as if you can just pluck a CCJ off the shelf and wreck people's credit and job prospects. Robo-claim firms like BW Legal should be ashamed of the way you mislead consumers; it would be refreshing if trained lawyers who convince yourselves that this sort of action is acceptable, actually looked at the bigger picture and used their skills to help society.

Your letter is such a transparent computerised template of drivel hoping I am fooled enough to pay you, that it even says I ''did not appeal''. Actually, I did, even being stupid enough to think your client's employee who encouraged me to appeal and agreed that the bays were badly marked, was being honest and was some sort of 'warden'.

The signage and markings at this car park are woeful, and no contract was accepted. I appealed in good faith, before I learnt what your client is really like. No more.

How about looking at the case, spending some time on it, sending me your evidence of the signage and bay markings and the alleged 'contravention', to fulfil your first duty to the court and your moral duty to litigants in person, beleaguered by an industry that is so greedy and out of control that MPs now know about the 'outrageous scam' operated across the country, cluttering up the courts.

It will not have escaped your attention that BW Legal were named and shamed in the Parliamentary debate in February, about the despicable private parking 'industry'. MP Stephen Doughty spoke compellingly and with vitriol about the parking firms that 'solicitors' like you are propping up and giving a veil of legitimacy, and he described the national scandal of 'rent a robo-claim' firms like BW Legal:

''I also want to highlight the firms of solicitors that work with those companies. We might refer to such firms as 'roboclaims' firms, and they often have a close and cosy relationship with the parking companies.

Fundamentally, this comes down to common sense, justice and reasonableness. When things end up in court, it is an absurd situation. Roboclaims companies, which are making a massive mint off this industry, can issue a summons for just £30, and yet a defendant can sometimes have to pay as much as eight times that to defend the case, as well as having to deal with the time, emotion and everything that comes with that process.

I wholeheartedly support the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and very much hope it gets Royal Assent. We need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country.''

Of course, it is well known that BW Legal boast of handling millions of parking victims' data at the same time, churning out letters like confetti. Your four solicitors obviously can't be bothered to look at any case pre-court and actually come up with specific information, and your letter giving me just ''16 days to reply or face court'', shows me that you are also playing fast and loose with the pre-action protocol for debt claims.

It is important that you now stop contacting me pretending you are wanting to 'help' discuss an ''affordable payment arrangement'' for a debt that does not exist. This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.

If your client proceeds to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum your client is unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a week-by-week basis, as evidence to support my position. How dare you harass me like this, how dare your client put me through this distress.

I am aware of the following two cases in the past year:

- on Friday 16th March, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and despite their roboclaim solicitor fielding a legal 'rent-a-rep', UKPC were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his £500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.

- in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded £900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant (same as your client's NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall (mirroring the conduct of BW Legal's robo-claim modus operandi) had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from £100 to £300 by adding spurious amounts.

Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were 'otherwise a respectable law firm'.

I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data is removed from all records held by you and your clients.

yours faithfully,