Premier Park/BWLegal PAP letter of claim - 4 unknown pcn's 2014

[chedit]

Hello all,

 

My mum has recently received this letter of claim from BWLegal representing Premier Park Ltd.  They are accusing her of 4 parking charge notices between the April 2014 to June 2014 and are asking for £560 to settle the fee.

 

It is highly unlikely that she was driving at the time of the alleged incidents, as she has never parked in this car park before.

 

Please advise, thank you.

 

she has also received a claimform for 2 PCN's at the same place for 2015 here

 

Mai-PAP-min.pdf

[dx100uk]

threads sorted thank you.

 

sounds like this might be a cloned number plate then?

4 here for 2014

and 2 in your other thread for 2015

 

[ericsbrother]

note that they have inflated the charges by including unlawful fees but this pushes the amount above the barrier for using bailiffs to enforce the debt if they are successful, hence their keenness to go ahead with this one.

 

Now what she needs to do if find some evidence of being elsewhere at the time ( bank statement for shopping) and also report the incidents to the police as use of a cloned plate for criminal activity so she has at least a crime number.

 

alternatively of the police arent interested then she will need to see if there are any other markers on the car via the DVLA and a SAR to the police force that covers the car park area

 

She also needs to deny the debt and I would start off by saying the vehicle was never parked on the land in question and demand copies of any high resolution images the parking co possesses so you can forward them to the police ( you will be looking for small differences between her vehicle and the bad 'un such as retailer stickers and reg plate identifiers such as makers details that all plates are obliged to ahve. the dodgy ones wont be the same.

 

Also look for differences in model such as wheel trim, dents etc.

TBH the police wont be interested but all of this will be needed as proof that her car wasnt the one involved

[chedit]

Hi @ericsbother @dx100uk

 

Thanks for the responses.

 

I have had a chat with my mum about this and the points all raised.

 

There is a chance that my brother might have been driving at the alleged places in 2014/2015, but we can't be certain as we are unable to contact him (he has also left the county), so I would say it isn't a duplicated number plate. From my knowledge thee is no proof (images) of the car being parked there (or they never sent any evidence).

 

Lets assume it was my brother who had parked the car there, the main car holders name would be my mums, hence why the letters are under her name rather than my brothers. Would there still be a strong enough defence for this?

 

(I would still demand HD images of the car being parked there, and perhaps the person driving?)

 

Look forward to your replies!

[dx100uk]

these would have all been ANPR and that cant be used for ID purposes anyway.

id concentrate on the court claim thread IMHO

 

all this needs is a EB snotty letter by the 12th august.

[chedit]

Hi,

 

Thank you both for your quick responses!

Address: Carpark opposite 3bd Architects

13 Backfields Ln, Bristol, BS2 8QW

 

There are no signs around or in the carpark stating that you cannot park there. (see photos)

 

My mum hasn't kept any older letters unfortunately but I will see if she has any statements or anything that proves that she wasn't there at the time of the incident. 

 

Should we proceed and write them a letter? We've made no contact with them whatsoever, so we don't know where to begin. 

 

Thanks.

[dx100uk]

please do not post images directly to a post

use PDF only

read upload

 

as for this LOC ..do it later 

get on with the court claim first forget this thread for now.

 

 

[chedit]

Hi, do you have any advice on how to respond to the PAP now that we’ve established it’s not a cloned number plate? 

The deadline of response is the 15th August. 

 

Thanks

 

[dx100uk]

time for an Ericsbrother snotty/insulting letter.

 

dx

 

[chedit]

 

 

As they have provided vehicle information or the carpark in question, can I use this a defence. This is what I have drafted out so far:

 

" 1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

I have no recollection that the claimant have provided any photographic evidence of the vehicle in question, or an image of the driver. Therefore I can not confirm that I am/was the recorded keeper of the said vehicle.

 

2. It is denied that the Defendant parked in [carpark] at the times mentioned in the Particulars OR the Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times he was parked in [carpark] as he has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same.

 

I have not been provided any details of the location of the carpark, the allocated time of the said dates, the registration of the vehicle.

 

3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 

 

Disclosure 31.5 (7D)

“(d) an order that each party disclose any documents which it is reasonable to suppose may contain information which enables that party to advance its own case or to damage that of any other party, or which leads to an enquiry which has either of those consequences;”

 

Still awaiting documents requested from BW Legal in the CPR 31.14 sent out on the 30th July 2019. The delay in providing these documents is preventing us from building a fair case before our court hearing. The letter(s) that BW legal and Premier Park Limited have sent to me in the past has not once informed the time stamp, the car park location, the number plate or a picture / evidence of me parking there.

 

4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all."

 

...

This is our response to the PAP, deadline 15th August. Pleased advise, thanks.

 

[dx100uk]

no don't open the flood gates mentioning everything bar the kitchen sink for a PAP LOC..

simply insult them.

 

EB will be along latter no rush you have 30days.

if you use the google custom search after hitting our squares logo uptop

 

ericsbrother BW Gladstone letter

or such words 

you'll soon get the idea

 

 

 

[chedit]

Thanks for the suggestion, I've just read through the ECP/Gladstones letter thread and have copied the abusive letter to send to Premier Park Ltd & BW Legal. Please advise.

 

CC: Premier Park Limited

 

Your incompetencies show after reading yet another magnificent failure to attend court over a claim in Romford resulting in a loss of money for their clients. Why don’t you just shut up and send me £60 to avoid humiliation later, it will be cheaper for your client that way.

 

I tried finding other examples of insulting letters to write to the parking co. and solicitors but can't find any good links. 

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by chedit

[chedit]

Apologies in advance... I've had no prior experience in writing abusive letters so don't really know where to begin. Please advise.

[lookinforinfo]

Just use the one that EB wrote.

[chedit]

@lookinforinfo The draft I posted in post #12 is directly copied from EB in a thread for Gladstones. I wasn't sure whether it was a little too random and needed tweeking or personalising to our situation.

[ericsbrother]

have you been back to the site and got some pictures of the signage there? that will be needed but may also help decide what to say to the PAP.

 

the simplest thing is " no keeper liability has been created because your clients believ it when they are told by the IPC that they dont need to abide by the protocols of the pOFA.

 

I was not the driver at the time and you will be wasting your clients money should you continue with this reckless attempt of coercion.

 

I will seek a full costs recovery order and am minded to make a civil claim for their breach of the DPA as per VCS v Phillip. 

 

VCS are of course members of the IPC so you client  has plenty of company is it stands in that pile of ordure

[chedit]

Thanks for the idea EB, I will be sending this to BW Legal and CC: Premier Park Limited.

 

We have been back to the suspected location, but as there was no location specified in any of the previous letters they sent. We are reluctant to use the pictures captured of the sign as that proves that we have any idea what they're talking about.

 

 

[dx100uk]

don't need to CC..

 

[chedit]

Thanks for the correction dx100uk.

 

Also, do you mind telling me what IPC and VCS stand for?

[brassnecked]

IPC = International parking community, a cowboy Trade body, see here https://theipc.info/

 

VCS + vehicle Control Services, a PPC that thinks it can make stuff up as it goes along especially with trying to put parking charges on No Stopping incidents at airports that are actually subject to Bylaws so nothing to do with VCS per se, but it doesn't stop them chancing their arm.

[chedit]

Thank you @brassnecked 

 

I'm going to be sending out the letter ASAP tomorrow as the deadline is on the 15th August

[ericsbrother]

On ‎12‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 18:48, chedit said:

Thanks for the idea EB, I will be sending this to BW Legal and CC: Premier Park Limited.

 

We have been back to the suspected location, but as there was no location specified in any of the previous letters they sent. We are reluctant to use the pictures captured of the sign as that proves that we have any idea what they're talking about.

 

 

and how the hell do you expect us to help you, we are not telepathic.

 

If you suspect that a location is the correct one then get the pictures, it is 50/50 at least they will sue you and then you will need the pictures or you will lose, simple as.

 

Better have some ammuniton and not use it than be in a gunfight with no bullets

[chedit]

We requested evidence for the PCNs and have received this. Where do we go from here? 

BW_Legal_Evidence-compressed.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

They didn't include the windscreen ticket where their main details of their contract should be included. There is a copy of a sign that may or not be located somewhere in that car park which is well out of date since they want vehicles to show their road fund licence'!

At the end of the day you were parked without a permit showing so you were trespassing which is nothing to do with anyone other than the landowner.

Is BW Legals correspondence in response to a CPR request by you? If so it is seriously short of relevant material-which is good for you.

[chedit]

Hi, 

 

Thanks for your response @lookinforinfo. 

 

This is BW Legal's correspondence in response to the CPR request we sent them a couple weeks back. They refused to disclose any evidence of jurisdiction in regards to trespassing or contracts with landowners.