IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Premier Parking Solutions BW Legal - Pay within 10min
Options
adam_steiner
Posts: 12 Forumite
Hi all,
First of all - having read numerous threads and stories I wanted to express huge thanks to all of you who spend all this time and effort helping strangers! :T
Background:
-Driver attended carpark operated by Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (PPS) which used ANPR
-Driver couldn't pay immediately as payment machine didn't accept notes or card. Driver's mobile was dead and didn't have coins.
- Driver attempted to recharge mobile in car - in meantime driver reviewed T&Cs and other machines.
- T&C states "pay before you leave" clause 11
- Realised other payment machine on other end of carpark had card reader (not mentioned at other machine), promptly bought ticket
- Some time later received PCN
- As owner explained that the value of ticket purchased covered vehicle from entry to exit
- PPS rejected appeal on the basis:
"As we do not allege a breach of contract we do not seek damages for loss, we seek payments pursuant to a specific contractual term which was made clear to the motorist at the time of parking by way of the signage on site.
Signage is plentiful, clear and has been approved by our ATA. All pay and display machines take cash, card payment and information on how to pay by RingGo are on
the machines." (note, several payment machines don't accept card payment incl. one driver tried to use)
- Owner went through IAS IPC, appeal rejected (surprise)
- Bombarded with debt collector letters from DPK, then went quiet
- 3 years later BW Legal demanded payment
- BW Legal have presented "Letter of Claim"
Material:
Onsite T&Cs hxxps://i.postimg.cc/QddzX13M/T-C-onsite.jpg
LBC hxxps://i.postimg.cc/L8Qbh593/BWLegal-LBC.jpg
Next Steps:
File SAR to Claimant (PPS) and respond to LBC (BW Legal)
Could someone kindly comment on my approach, and share any additional wisdom?
Response to BW Legal:
Dear BW Legal,
I am in receipt of your Letter Before Action of xxx.
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your case places reliance upon.
You must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.
Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide. You must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.
As you must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm such as yourselves are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.
Nobody, including yourself, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.
I require you to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
2. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
3. What the details of the claim are; in particular which clause(s) have been breached, how long was the vehicle at site, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
45. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”
6. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
7. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
8. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form
If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until you at BW Legal have complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
First of all - having read numerous threads and stories I wanted to express huge thanks to all of you who spend all this time and effort helping strangers! :T
Background:
-Driver attended carpark operated by Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (PPS) which used ANPR
-Driver couldn't pay immediately as payment machine didn't accept notes or card. Driver's mobile was dead and didn't have coins.
- Driver attempted to recharge mobile in car - in meantime driver reviewed T&Cs and other machines.
- T&C states "pay before you leave" clause 11
- Realised other payment machine on other end of carpark had card reader (not mentioned at other machine), promptly bought ticket
- Some time later received PCN
- As owner explained that the value of ticket purchased covered vehicle from entry to exit
- PPS rejected appeal on the basis:
"As we do not allege a breach of contract we do not seek damages for loss, we seek payments pursuant to a specific contractual term which was made clear to the motorist at the time of parking by way of the signage on site.
Signage is plentiful, clear and has been approved by our ATA. All pay and display machines take cash, card payment and information on how to pay by RingGo are on
the machines." (note, several payment machines don't accept card payment incl. one driver tried to use)
- Owner went through IAS IPC, appeal rejected (surprise)
- Bombarded with debt collector letters from DPK, then went quiet
- 3 years later BW Legal demanded payment
- BW Legal have presented "Letter of Claim"
Material:
Onsite T&Cs hxxps://i.postimg.cc/QddzX13M/T-C-onsite.jpg
LBC hxxps://i.postimg.cc/L8Qbh593/BWLegal-LBC.jpg
Next Steps:
File SAR to Claimant (PPS) and respond to LBC (BW Legal)
Could someone kindly comment on my approach, and share any additional wisdom?
Response to BW Legal:
Dear BW Legal,
I am in receipt of your Letter Before Action of xxx.
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your case places reliance upon.
You must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.
Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide. You must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.
As you must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm such as yourselves are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.
Nobody, including yourself, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.
I require you to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
2. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
3. What the details of the claim are; in particular which clause(s) have been breached, how long was the vehicle at site, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
45. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”
6. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
7. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
8. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form
If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until you at BW Legal have complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
0
Comments
-
Onsite T&Cs
No mention of a grace period or that a ticket must be bought within ten minutes, or that a purchased ticket cannot be used to cover time from car park entry.
The scammers are using a prohibited premium rate 'phone number.
"The 0845 number breaches Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. These regulations came from BIS, not Ofcom, and took effect on 13 June 2014. This can be reported to Trading Standards (via the Citizen's Advice national Consumer Helpline on 0345 404 0506).
The 0845 number may be a breach of the parking industry Code of Practice. This can be reported to the appropriate trade association.
The omission of call costs from the sign breaches Ofcom regulations that took effect 1 July 2015. This can be reported to ASA via their webform."
LBC
They have added on a fake £60 charge. Read the abuse of process thread by beamerguy, especially the comments in post 14 by Coupon-mad.
I believe a number of complaints have been made about this to the SRA, ICO, Trading Standards, and the FCA, and you should do the same.
Also complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.
What happened when the keeper complained to the landowner?I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks1 -
Thanks for the quick reply Fruitcake -
The site was abandoned, initially belonged to a car dealership, was then converted into a car park, and has been demolished to build flats.What happened when the keeper complained to the landowner?
The PPC refused to share details of the contract with the landowner, though stated they had authorisation and legal standing.
You suggest the owner puts that into the defence as opposed to telling them now in reply to their letter of claim?
Sorry folks - changed links as metadata gave away details
Onsite T&Cs hxxps://i.postimg.cc/QddzX13M/T-C-onsite.jpg
LBC hxxps://i.postimg.cc/L8Qbh593/BWLegal-LBC.jpg0 -
Your links made live: -
https://i.postimg.cc/QddzX13M/T-C-onsite.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/L8Qbh593/BWLegal-LBC.jpg0 -
Your links made live: -
https://i.postimg.cc/QddzX13M/T-C-onsite.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/L8Qbh593/BWLegal-LBC.jpg
Yet more nonsensical statements by BWLegal
*** PRINCIPAL DEBT PLUS INITIAL LEGAL COSTS £160
*** STATEMENT: PRINCIPAL BALANCE £100
...... DEBT RECOVERY COSTS £60
What's it to be BWLegal, you can't have both ???... infact you cannot claim either
And, it's very nonsensical to claim they are allowed to add fake amounts by the code of practice ???
Total rubbish, the code of practice IS NOT A LAW and does not apply to the motorist .... only the parking company
What is the law is POFA2012 and faking a reason to charge an extra £60 is breaking the law.
This is the very reason BWLegal get spanked in court for ABUSE OF PROCESS
At this point, you can ask BWLegal what legal authority they have to add a false £60 .... thus far they will not answer apart from nonsensical reasons that are not applicable1 -
adam_steiner wrote: »Thanks for the quick reply Fruitcake -
The site was abandoned, initially belonged to a car dealership, was then converted into a car park, and has been demolished to build flats.
The PPC refused to share details of the contract with the landowner, though stated they had authorisation and legal standing.
You suggest the owner puts that into the defence as opposed to telling them now in reply to their letter of claim?
Sorry folks - changed links as metadata gave away details
Onsite T&Cs hxxps://i.postimg.cc/QddzX13M/T-C-onsite.jpg
LBC hxxps://i.postimg.cc/L8Qbh593/BWLegal-LBC.jpg
The vehicle owner isn't involved and should do nothing.
The defendant will either be the driver if someone has blabbed about their identity (hopefully not) or the keeper who has the protection of the Protection of Freedoms Act.
Read the guide to court by bargepole you will find in post 2 of the NEWBIES. This is a step by step guide from LBC to the court appearance.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks1 -
That extra £60, whatever they call it, is unlawful, read this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6014081
and complain to the SRA
https://www.sra.org.uk/
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT][/FONT]You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
SAR sent, letter to MP prepared, and LBC written up -
Would you folks add/remove anything or am I overthinking this part?Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your case places reliance upon.
You must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.
Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide. You must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.
As you must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm such as yourselves are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.
Nobody, including yourself, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.
Especially you should be aware by now of falling afoul to Abuse of Process adding inflated costs in your calculation given your recent escapades (Case F0DP806M/F0DP201T and F5DP2D6Y) and in clear breach of POFA paras 4(5) and 4(6) and Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2.
I require you to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
2. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
3. What the details of the claim are; in particular which clause(s) have been breached, how long was the vehicle at site, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
45. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”
6. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
7. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
8. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form
If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until you at BW Legal have complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Additionally, a SAR has been submitted to your client and thus require a restriction of data processing and the case should be put 'on hold’.0 -
Also...
In the inital PCN PPS claimed:As we do not allege a breach of contract we do not seek damages for loss, we seek payments pursuant to a specific contractual term which was made clear to the motorist at the time of parking by way of the signage on site.
BW Legal in the Particulars of Debt state:On [DATE] you breached the Terms and Conditions by Unauthorised Parking (“Breach”)
Surely these statements contradict each other? ��0 -
One for a Judge to unravel.Surely these statements contradict each other? ��Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
adam_steiner wrote: »SAR sent, letter to MP prepared, and LBC written up -
Would you folks add/remove anything or am I overthinking this part?
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your case places reliance upon.
You must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.
Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide. You must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.
As you must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm such as yourselves are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.
Nobody, including yourself, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.
Especially you should be aware by now of falling afoul to Abuse of Process adding inflated costs in your calculation given your recent escapades (Case F0DP806M/F0DP201T and F5DP2D6Y) and in clear breach of POFA paras 4(5) and 4(6) and Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2.
I require you to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
2. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
3. What the details of the claim are; in particular which clause(s) have been breached, how long was the vehicle at site, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
45. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”
6. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
7. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
8. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form
If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until you at BW Legal have complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Additionally, a SAR has been submitted to your client and thus require a restriction of data processing and the case should be put 'on hold’.
Your numbering is off (point 45).
You can ask to see the contract but you won't get a copy until the exhibits stage as long as you have Not the landowner, No standing to issue charges or issue claims as defence points.
Change this,
Additionally, a SAR has been submitted to your client and thus require a restriction of data processing and the case should be put 'on hold’.
To this,
Although I deny any debt, I am seeking debt advice and therefore, pursuant to the pre-action protocol for debt claims 4.2 you are required to suspend the action for 30 days.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdfI married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards