Link/BW PAPLOC now Claimform 2xPCN's - residential parking - Collingwood Place, Gloucester, GL1 3NA

[jazzhands111]

Hi,

 

Since I received my ticket back in February i've been reading various forum threads about parking tickets and procedure.

I believe I'm in the right and am willing to go to court, but now I need some specific help beyond the general things i've read about.

The company alleging the parking contravention is Link Parking Limited and BW legal are acting on their behalf.

 

My story is simple,

I was visiting my cousin at his new flat in Gloucester for the weekend.

I parked in what I believed to be the visitor bay marked with "V" on the bay whereas the residents parking were marked with numbers. This is visible in the pictures the parking company took of my vehicle.

 

On the inside of the building, ground floor there is a notice regarding parking.

One of the bullet points reads "There are a number of designated visitors' parking spaces within the development strictly for genuine visitors only".

There is no mention of visitors needing a permit or where the bays are located, just that they exist, just that they have to be genuine visitors, which I was.

 

I may have naively assumed that "V" stood for visitor and given that there was a whole section dedicated to "V" parking I assumed that's where all the visitors parked. There is also no mention of visitors needing a permit in the lease.

I was issued a ticket on 16/02/20 and again on 17/02/20 for "failing to display a valid permit".

 

I appealed the ticket after receiving an NTK from Link Parking via the Link Parking website.

Of course they rejected the appeal, this was based on me not displaying a valid permit. This is a copy of their reply:

 

Further to your email appealing your PCN.

You parked your vehicle in a manner which attracted a charge as your vehicle was not fully displaying a full valid parking permit.

It is the drivers responsibility to ensure they meet the parking requirements.

Our signs clearly advertise the parking requirements and by not meeting them you accepted our charge.

We have attached date and time stamped images to show this .

Our notice to keeper is PoFA  2012 compliant and your claim that it is not is incorrect.

 

Given the facts we are rejecting your appeal.

 

If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).

The IAS provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type.

We may engage with the IAS non standard appeals service at our discretion should a dispute arise over this charge.  

For information please visit www.theias.org. 

 

Yours Sincerely 

Appeals Team

 

Then came the letters from BW legal asking me to pay the increased fee of £320 total for both tickets.

I called them up upon receiving the first letter, again stated my case and that I would not be paying (my mistake).

 

Kept receiving calls after that every few days asking me to pay until I got them to switch my contact number out for one that doesn't exist.

A few more letters followed, all repeating the same thing as the first. Up until now.

 

I've received a "letter of claim" it says they've been instructed by link parking to commence legal action in the form of issuing a claim against me in the county court. If payment or a response is not received before 10/11/20 they are going to issue a claim against me in the county court without further notice. The estimated claim is now up to £415.21 which includes court fees interest and solicitors costs. I will upload the full letter below.

 

So what do I do now?

It seems like it's either pay up or go to court, while i'm confident i'm in the right it's still pretty daunting to be met with legal action.

If court action is the only way to get out of this without paying then what do I do now?

Do I continue to ignore this letter until I get one from the court or do I respond and if so how should I respond?

 

Below is information pertaining to my case with redacted personal identifying information.

It should also be noted that the appeal was made as the keeper of the vehicle and there has been thus far no indication made as to who was actually driving the car.

 

LBC.pdf

Pix.pdf

[FTMDave]

Firstly, well done on all the research you've done and your attitude of being quite prepared to take on these fleecers in court!  Plus not naming the driver, excellent stuff.  We wish everyone would prepare so well!

 

I've deleted your pix from the thread but put them back on in PDF so only registered Caggers can see them - best to keep these con artists guessing.

 

You are definitely legally in the right.  Your cousin will have Supremacy of Contract and that can be passed on to visitors (I read of a case recently where a judge had ruled so ... EDIT ... found it! ... https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/ukpc-lose-residential-case-tenant-can.html ).  Plus you obeyed their signs.  You aren't telepathic about permits which the signs don't mention! 

 

You need to reply to a Letter of Claim though, as it's a formal notice of intention to commence legal proceedings.  Best to be as contemptuous and abusive as possible (short of swearing!)  These shysters are interested in motorists who don't know the law and wet themselves.  They don't want to take people on who are trouble and would put up a fight in court.

 

Please draft something and post it here.

Edited October 9, 2020 by FTMDave
Updating post

[dx100uk]

54 minutes ago, jazzhands111 said:

they are going to issue a claim against me in the county court without further notice.

 

read the letter properly..you've done so well to date (well you rang BW - bet you enjoyed that)

 

now cal i just clarify one thing

these were windscreen tickets and you still have then?

if so need them and both NTK's please too.

Link are a bit like smart parking...they rarely get everything right.

 

dx

 

[jazzhands111]

@FTMDave Ah thanks for the edit, I didn't realise this was a thing they did although now you mention it i'm not surprised it's a thing they do lol.

 

Is there somewhere I can find a template for my reply to the letter I'm not really sure what I need to put,

do I outline my case again, or do I just put "I'm not paying" in caps size 32 font.

 

Should I respond with recorded delivery or is email acceptable?

 

I created a gmail address specifically for this when I made my first appeal that cannot be traced back to "The Driver" as the appeal was as "The Keeper".

 

@dx100uk Thanks for the response as it's quite late and didn't expect anything until the morning.

Yes they were windscreen tickets I'll attach them to this post as i'm not sure how to edit the original one.

The NTK's are already attached to the original post.

 

As far as I can tell from what i've read over the past few months both the ticket and the NTK are compliant with current laws. The NTK did not state a "period" of time for when the car was parked, only a date and a beginning time (no end time).

 

However that was kind of picking low hanging fruit on my behalf and they rejected my appeal for that particular gripe on that basis the first time.

 

If you also need to see the reverse of the ticket i'll need some time as I believe my cousin is still holding onto them as he was trying to get the property management to have them dropped. 

 

pix 2.pdf

[FTMDave]

I've just joked with my fellow Site Team member dx that we are both Night Owls!

 

How about something like (standing on the shoulders of a certain Aston Villa-supporting snotty letter king) -

 

Dear BW Legal,

 

cheers for your Letter of Claim.  I hear there is panic buying once again of toilet paper so you were good to help me out.

 

Now you know and I know and now you know that I know that the signs are a prohibition and in any case Supremacy of Contract reigns here plus the driver did actually obey what was written on your clients' silly signs.

 

Your clients can either drop this madness now or get a good hiding in court.  Up to them.  I quite fancy a well overdue holiday once all this COVID stuff is over and your clients' financing it after an unreasonable costs order under CPR27.14(2)(g) would do nicely.

 

Wait till Monday to send it so other regulars can agree/disagree.

 

BTW, it made me laugh that Link said you could  appeal to the IAS.  The IPC parking association, its appeals body the IAS and the company of solicitors that these companies most often use ... are all run by the same people!  No conflict of interest there!  I wonder what the result of a further appeal would have been   Call their bluff and see how tough they are when they would have to stand up before an unbiased judge.

 

 

[dx100uk]

blimey link parking actually issuing TWO NTK's within the correct time frame..

that is rare..

 

 

[dx100uk]

you should NEVER use email to a PPC or their dogs.

regardless to it being a disposable one.

[jazzhands111]

Thanks to the abundance of information out there I just decided against using the IAS as the same outcome was expected and it wouldn't have helped/hindered my case moving forward so would've just been a colossal waste of time.

 

Correct me if i'm wrong but it's actually worth going through the other trade body who's name escapes me right now so for anyone else in a similar position but with a different parking company I would advise checking which trade body they are a part of. 

 

As for the reply you wrote in regards to the letter, is it going to hurt me if it moves as far as court?

I imagine if they produce this to a judge they might not look kindly upon this type of behaviour.

 

While I would love to make my true feelings known towards this situation I'm not going to do it if it hurts me in the future, though i'm sure nobody here would give bad advice i'm just double checking in case this is a joke response and it's totally gone over my head lol.

 

Also to Clarify do I send the reply form back with the section D marked and then the snarky response? Also do I send this to Link Parking LTD or BW Legal?

 

Thanks again for the prompt response.

 

@dx100uk Thanks i'll make note of that for the future, should be noted though that on the Link Parking website the only option to appeal is via a form on the site which requires you to enter an email.

 

Is there a reason as to why I shouldn't use a disposable email address, just as future reference?

Say I end up in the same situation again with Link Parking,

do I just opt not to appeal at all instead of filling out the web form?

[dx100uk]

you do not use the PAPLOC form no. just send the letter by 2nd class post within 30days. get free proof of posting from any po counter

 

be as insulting as you like - never hurt anyone. use our search top right 'BW snotty letter' and read....

 

as for the approved trade bodies - you NEVER appeal to anyone let alone an old boys network..full stop.

you do realise they are run by the directors of one of the most prolific speculative invoice solicitors gladstones?? 

 

as for using email...

PPC's and their dogs LIE, CHEAT, FAKE DOCUMENTS , doctor contracts with their supposed managing agents or land owners...the list goes on. they stop at nothing to scam people or even a judge.

 

if they have an email AD they WILL file important court documents SHOULD they proceed to court 1 min before a deadline REMOVING your chance to counter them .

 

am surprised you have missed these important points in your research.

 

dx

 

[FTMDave]

No, it is not a joke reply.  The more you show these con artists respect the more they will try to fleece you.  Don't fill in their Section D.  Treat them with contempt.  They're not the police or the council, they have no right to this money and they know it. 

 

The slightly less bad parking association the BPA have an appeals body POPLA that is not corrupt but has very limited remit ... but Link are not part of this association so no can do.

 

Supremacy of Contract is a proper legal concept.  A judge would get a lot angrier with Link for suing you for money that they know full well wasn't owed than for you for writing a sarcky response.

 

I would suggest your send it to BW Legal and also copy to Link and make it clear to BW Legal that you are doing so. That is because unscrupulous solicitors love it if their clients take on court cases they are bound to lose - they are £££££ in anyway.

 

However, wait till Monday to do so so.  See what others think.

 

[jazzhands111]

@dx100ukFair enough, i'll go ahead and get a reply sorted pending any further replies from other users and have it going first thing Monday.

 

I think this is the first time seeing the email thing on the many threads on many forums

i've visited I guess I must have missed it but have mentally noted it should I end up here again (I always pay parking fees if applicable, this is the first time this has happened to me in almost 14 years of driving!).

 

@FTMDave Your info about appealing contradicts some of the stuff I read over at moneysavingexpert a few months back, they specifically state to file a POPLA appeal if the PPC is a member of the BPA. Is this no longer valid advice?

 

Well I think i'm going to enjoy this!

 

Thanks again, so if everything seems kosher i'll go ahead and draft a letter post it here and then stick it in the mail on Monday.

 

In terms of forum etiquette does this thread then get put on hold until I receive a reply, do I just update here or create a new thread? I imagine it will be at least a month until I hear anything new about this given the time frame they've outlined.

[dx100uk]

you keep to this thread..

as for elsewhere

 

we do not let touts use our forum...it's FREE and all advise always will be...that doesn't stop donations mind....

 

nearly every advice poster on certain other forums purposefully gives information that nearly always results in things escalating...then they PM people and charge them for 'advice' to get them out the ..... they have already got people into.

the going price for 'representation' by an expert is upwards of £160 if they want help in court alone.

 

choose your bed people..

 

 

 

[jazzhands111]

If you guys get me through this i'll happily throw some money at the forum! Better here than in the hands of parasites. I chose to post here rather than there as the threads here seem far more useful and easy to follow.

Edited October 10, 2020 by jazzhands111

[dx100uk]

[BankFodder]

8 hours ago, jazzhands111 said:

 

 

Kept receiving calls after that every few days asking me to pay until I got them to switch my contact number out for one that doesn't exist.

 

 

Nice!

 

[FTMDave]

I've just remembered that one of these companies got a spectacular kicking in court recently with the judge being particularity annoyed about the company adding made-up fees to their claim.  BW Legal have, incredibly, been honest re court costs in the LBC, but Link have invented £120 from nowhere.  So i would amend the letter and go with

 

 

"Dear BW Legal,

 

cheers for your Letter of Claim.  I hear there is panic buying once again of toilet paper so you were good to help me out.

 

Now you know and I know and now you know that I know that the signs are a prohibition and in any case Supremacy of Contract reigns here plus the driver did actually obey what was written on your clients' silly signs.

 

I note your clients are claiming £120 Unicorn Food Tax.  I'm sure you read DDJ Harvey's judgement in Lewes on 24 April.  Not very happy with these made up amounts, was he?

 

Your clients can either drop this madness now or get a good hiding in court.  Up to them.  I quite fancy a well overdue holiday once all this COVID stuff is over and your clients' financing it after an unreasonable costs order under CPR27.14(2)(g) would do nicely.

 

COPIED TO LINK PARKING"

 

 

However, wait till Monday before sending it to both BW Legal and Link, getting free certificates of posting from the P.O.

 

If you want to have a good laugh at what the judge had to say, it's in the attachment in post 1 at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421148-one-parking-solutions-represented-by-qdr-solicitors-damning-judgement/#comments

 

[jazzhands111]

UPDATE:

 

I sent off my response letter and they have come back with the following response - see attached pdf with identifiable information redacted.

 

What's my next step here?

I feel like they are sticking on the fact that my car was not displaying a permit, which is true.

But there is no information anywhere on site on where to obtain a "valid parking permit" and as explained earlier in the thread

 

a "valid parking permit" is not required for "genuine visitors" as stated by a notice on the information board inside the building where I was parked.

 

Do I need to give another response or just wait for court action?

I feel like i'm talking to a brick wall, they keep coming back with the same response in terms of a valid parking permit regardless of how many times I tell them one wasn't required.

 

Cheers

Scan 13 Nov 2020.pdf

[dx100uk]

yours is not the next move

the you not being a tenant issue is immaterial and total bunkum.

[jazzhands111]

Hi DX!,

 

I hope you aren't working too hard, you seem to find my posts no matter what time of day they are posted. So the suggestion here is radio silence until I receive a court date?

 

cheers.

[lookinforinfo]

The reasons for such a snotty response is that they know you are not going to give up and pay;  it forewarns the Judge that it is a frivolous claim and its fun.

 

As you didn't have a permit it therefore follows that you were trespassing and only the land owner [ie the organ grinder ] can sue for trespass not the monkey.

 

Now it may well be that in the tenant's parking rights may allow them to have visitors and it would be strange that they would need permits since they may be visiting at odd hours and at times when the permit office is not open.

 

Another thing to question is their signage. There should be a sign at the entrance stating that it is private land, that permits are required and the charge for unauthorised parking along with any other rules and regs. is a charge of  £100. I could not see anything like that and the sign behind your car is of such small print that it doesn't comply with IPC rules.

 

Not sure if it requires planning permission for its signs you may have to check with the Council-you are looking for Town and Country [advertisements] regulations 2007. If they are required they probably don't have it which is illegal so the signs shouldn't be there and not only has no breach occurred, they will have failed to comply with the IPC Code of Conduct. 

 

But all that is for your WS.

 

[FTMDave]

A Letter of Claim is a formal notice of intention to commence legal proceedings - "stop messing around, cough up or you'll be in court".

 

So after you didn't cough up, they have unleashed with all their might and with an unassailable cast-iron case behind them ... er, another letter.

 

They seem very reluctant to actually start this court case, I wonder why

[lookinforinfo]

Have you checked with your friend to see what their tenancy can let them do. Also see what the tenancy says about visitors and if  the V on the parking area does refer to visitors, can you find out how those visitors are supposed to get permits.

[jazzhands111]

The owner of the flat (not the building or land owner) said that visitor spaces were available marked with a V.

 

The private spaces which require a permit have to be applied for and these spaces are marked with numbers e.g. flat number 5 gets parking space number 5.

 

At first I thought I had made a mistake and the parking spaces were marked in roman numerals (meaning V would not be visitor but 5 instead), but they are not.

 

There is no information on where to obtain visitor permits, nobody appears to have any clue,

 

I called the ground rent collection company and the management company.

 

It should also be noted that he's had other visitors in the time since, who also parked in the same spots but without tickets.

[lookinforinfo]

Looks like another reason why you do not have to pay. If the scheme allows visitor parking  but does not mention in tenants leases that visitors do need permits then there is confusion. How do visitors get  a permit ; can you have a permit for One day or more or are they restricted to just a few hours; do permits have to be applied for days in advance of can they get them on  the day etc. etc.

[brassnecked]

probably be found as unfair term if the system for visitors is so convoluted.