BW Letter RE; 2013 Excel PCN - wrongly entered reg?

[1099OID]

She has just received A letter from bw legal regarding a PNC (Private Land) back in July 2013.

 

They are using the court case of Parking Eye Vs Beavis as there main argument.

 

She bought a ticket;

she did not go over the allotted time.

 

The reg plate was entered wrong.

See the details below and hopefully it should be come clear

 

Back in July 2013 a fiend of my daughter parked on a private car park run by excel parking.

 

At the time the girl in question was young and being young when paying for her ticket instead of putting in her reg, as she should, she was a little mischievous and put in TIT HEAD.

 

Well guess what happened next she got letter PNC through for £100. + £54 cost.

 

By the time she had told me in December of that year it was a debt collection agency that was chasing her for the money.

 

I sent a conditional acceptance saying that she did buy a ticket and we would happy except the fine if they could prove that the Reg TIT HEAD had not mistakenly been entered in their machine. And I sent a five pound Cheque to cover any loss.

 

I said that she was not excepting any liability but was here staying honour and offering remedy.

 

I said if this is not acceptable please return the cheque and with it proof of claim in the following.

 

I asked 19 things like disclosure of all photographs.

That Excell can show by the way of records that TIT HEAD was not entered on that day.

 

A asked them explain what grounds they are making a claim.

 

Is it damages for trespass,

damages for breach of contract,

damages for loss of income?

So on and so forth

 

in all I asked for between 16 and 19 pieces of information.

She has heard nothing since until she received this letter the other day.

 

Any advice please in relation to parking eye Vs Beavis and the above circumstances

[dx100uk]

just send BW the one line disclaimer on many BW VCS excel threads here.

 

shes one of 1000's to get this letter

 

next will be a claimform

 

shame you paid

shame you called it a fine.

 

they now know you haven't a clue what you are talking about

hence the letter hoping you'll make a mistake again.

[ericsbrother]

I'm not surprised they didnt answer,

they get hundreds of these types of demands for proof

but generally they miss the point and you have made that same mistake,

 

this is admitting fault and try and mitigate.

 

Well, that has now blown up in your face as she will be damned by your words.

 

This is not about parking

but a matter of contract law

and that has been misunderstood in your list of demands as to what the rights of the matter are

and what a unilateral contract can be.

 

You had better find a better argument when the N1 drops on the doormat

 

so start reading other threads here and elsewhere and see what will defeat a claim.

[1099OID]

Thank you for the two replies.

 

both seem to happy to tell me what an idiot i am in the way i have handled it.

which i am happy to except it.

 

i might not like how it was put but i have to take it on the chin.

rightly or wrongly It was my understanding at the time.

and it backed them of for 3 years.

 

so i have to start again i will look into how to defeat a claim .

 

If ericsbrother if you could point me to any threads to speed up the process i would be great-full,

 

My understanding of contract is that if they are claiming breach of contract they have to be at loss.

 

if they it is by the way of damages they have to show the breach has caused loss or by entering the wrong number has caused loss or damage.

 

Please dx100uk do not reply to this or any of my post again please.

I personally felt belittled by your comments

 

i except that my understanding is not a patch on yours.

and your superiority in this subject matter is far above mine

but at the time that was my understanding and hindsight which is a wonderful thing.

 

I now would have handled things differently.

The the girl in question is at my house for Sunday lunch and was telling her what a good site this was for help and advice and i suggested that we have a look at the reply's

 

 

when we opened the replays read what was put she got quite upset after reading the posts but especially your post it made her cry she got quite apologetic to me for punting me to any trouble, which in turn made me feel bad for letting her down.

 

so apart from from telling me what an brain dead moron i am, what actual advice/ help did you give me to help her ?

let see shall we (NONE)

 

Just in case you were wondering I did offer to pay the invoice my self but she has flatly refused and wont here of it so i am honour bound to help her any way I can.

[dx100uk]

wasn't belittling you

just said it was a shame

but your letter original letter was a wee bit OTT

 

there wasn't anyone else replying like that 3 yrs ago that I saw.

 

however.

 

what she has just gotten is std letter sent out by BW.

 

the background in all effect will make I suspect little odds at theend of the day.

 

just send the one liner that's on other threads here.

 

will hopefully reduce the chance of a claimform

[but as you'll see already, there are lots of threads with those too.

.but no-one that's defended properly has lost out to them.]

 

mine and EB comments are not so much toward you

but latter readers to see and not do the same

as that's what cag is about

showing what to do in these situations.

keep us informed.

 

dx

[1099OID]

on the claim form

they have to state nature of the claim.

 

what is their claim. apart from she owes £154.00?

 

By not entering her reg right she is in breach of contract?

 

or she has caused damage to the value of XYZ for not entering reg right.

 

what grounds are they trying to proceed on by not entering the reg right?

[dx100uk]

they are just std claimforms with all the same text in the claim and its POC

 

sum for parking ticket

sum for costs to court

addition £54? is it sols costs.

 

type in BW VCS excel Claimform in the search cag box of the top red toolbar.

 

you'll see lots of threads

each has their poc in red

they are the same bar ofcourse details of time/place.

background is not mentioned

[ericsbrother]

PE v Beavis is a landmark case that says parking co's dont have to calculate their losses,

just make it clear on the signage that you are entering into a contract

and what the conditions of that contract are

and what will happen if you breach that contract.

 

 

Beavis puts consumer contract law on a par with commercial contract law

so showing a loss and calculation of liquidated damages no longer applicable.

 

 

Many parking co's dont know the difference and talk about contractual charges

when they mean damages for breach of contract.

 

 

They amount may be the same but if they get the wording wrong you cannot owe anything as they are different beasts.

 

So, back to the beginning,

where was the car park and can you get hold of images of the signage easily?

if not we can googlesnoop it from the road but that requires detail of exactly where the car park was.

 

 

also, are there signs inside the car park that differ to any at the entrance?

Excel are good at having 2 or 3 sets of signs that have different conditions on them

or refer to other signage elsewhere (or even to a website) so that would be useful for a couple of lines of defence.

 

Beavis doesnt however,

give the parking co's the right to claim any amount they want just because they have put some signs up,

it must still be an offer and acceptance and it is for them to prove that this has been done.

 

 

in the yong lady's case they now know they are chasing the right person,

the POFA doesnt apply any more and they have a good idea (or so they think) of what will be said next if they apply more pressure or make a claim.

 

 

The next step is to gather some information about the place and then respond to BW in a way that makes it clear that there is a good reason to resist their claim and they are likley to lose

 

 

so get busy with the info and read up on things like the Mansfield retail parkcase (planning permission) as most parking co's are stiffed by their criminal activity by not having planning permission for the signage.