PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Passed to BW legal - residential visitor bay parking
Scrumpy99
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 08:42
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,510



I have received a letter from BW Legal regarding a pcn from March 2016.

I live in a block of flats which has a gated car park entered by a security code. I am a tenant and have one allocated parking space. There are a number of visitor spaces which state:
VISITORS PARKING
PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY
MAX STAY 24 HRS NO RETURN IN 24 HRS
PERMITS MUST BE DISPLAYED AT ALL TIMES

This signage is ambiguous in that people parking in visitor bays do not need to display a permit.
There is also no mention of a penalty or penalty amount for parking in visitor bays on this or the main signage.

I had parked in the visitor bay the day before as I was unloading and it is closer to the flats. The next day I came home and somebody was parked in my numbered bay so I went into the visitor bay again, with my permit on display.

Unfortunately at the time I wasn’t aware of not admitting I was the driver so emailed them to appeal and said I was the driver and explained the situation, all I got back was I should have phoned them to come and ticket the person in my numbered space - although I don’t see how this would have freed up my space, it would have just meant the parking people made more money. The car in my space had a permit on display so looked like it was another resident who had obviously parked in error.

We have felt under siege by BW legal for the past few months - other members of my family have received these letters and we are receiving on average one a day every day and there is a court case coming up for my partner. We also have a formal complaint with the ICO regarding data obtaining and handling by BW Legal. The letters have definitely increased since this complaint, with tickets produced from years ago, mostly to do with visitor parking. I know they are a company dealing with 1000s of tickets and letters are computer generated, however this is starting to feel like harassment. Should I take this up with the SRA?

Obviously I will defend the above, and will likely end up in court. The parking company are meant to be stopping non residents parking here, not harassing the residents who have legitimate use of the car park via the gate entry key code.

BW have refused to show me their contract with the landowner, giving consent to pursue and enforce parking charges against residents who are allowed to access the car parkdue to it being subject to “legal” privilege in a case we are defending for my partner.

I have asked my landlord for a copy of the lease, as presumably their parking privileges under the lease pass to me as a tenant under an assured tenancy?

Any help much appreciated, do I ignore and wait for the court claim or try to reply - although this will probably be a waste of energy it will provide evidence for court. I am getting really really tired of BW Legal now.

This post has been edited by Scrumpy99: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 15:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 08:42
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 09:01
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Has anyone approached the management company to ask what on earth their agent is playing at?

This parasitic behaviour is perfectly normal for private parking in residential car parks, once any actual wrong doers are scared off they ticket the residents to maintain their revenue stream.

Your defence, among other things, would be that they had failed to keep your space clear, as such you parked in an available space.

Get your lease out, this is key, what EXACTLY does it say about parking?





--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scrumpy99
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 09:21
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,510



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 10:01) *
Has anyone approached the management company to ask what on earth their agent is playing at?

This parasitic behaviour is perfectly normal for private parking in residential car parks, once any actual wrong doers are scared off they ticket the residents to maintain their revenue stream.

Your defence, among other things, would be that they had failed to keep your space clear, as such you parked in an available space.

Get your lease out, this is key, what EXACTLY does it say about parking?


Hi thanks for your reply.
The management company say take it up with the parking company, they don’t get involved.
I don’t have the lease as in the leasehold, my landlord is going to get me a copy. Parking is mentioned in the tenancy - each space is numbered and corresponds to the number of your flat.
Visitor spaces signage have now changed and no longer mention permit holders although still do not mention penalties and how much.
Residents here are lobbying the management company to get rid of the parking company due to their aggressive and unprofessional behaviour.

This post has been edited by Scrumpy99: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 12:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 11:04
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So pictures of the signs might help. If no amount is mentioned on the signage then how can they say there was a contract to pay that amount?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scrumpy99
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 12:31
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,510



Hopefully the pics will post ok as had to resize them as too big.

There is a penalty mentioned on a very poor condition bigger sign however the terms and conditions do not mention visitor spaces at all.

Shortly after my complaint about the signage being ambiguous they changed the signs to the third pic..

This post has been edited by Scrumpy99: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 12:32
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 12:37
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



I bet those tatty signs don't half enhance the aesthetics of the residential setting. Must add ££££ to the value of properties!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scrumpy99
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 12:52
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,510



QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 13:37) *
I bet those tatty signs don't half enhance the aesthetics of the residential setting. Must add ££££ to the value of properties!


Oh yes, no expense spared laugh.gif

I have got a thread running on MSE re the other tickets they have sent to others in the household, but wanted to separate this new one as it is all getting too complicated.

I would think we would be very recognisable to the parking company if the monitor these forums from those signs, I’m not really bothered - should I be?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 13:19
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



If the lease grants unconditional parking rights, the management company can't lawfully employ Armtrac without the consent of the residents
It's called derogation from grant

It's clearly been negligent to employ what five minutes on Google would have confirmed to be a disreputable company
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scrumpy99
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 13:49
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,510



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 14:19) *
If the lease grants unconditional parking rights, the management company can't lawfully employ Armtrac without the consent of the residents
It's called derogation from grant

It's clearly been negligent to employ what five minutes on Google would have confirmed to be a disreputable company



I think both companies are as disreputable as the other unfortunately.

Do I bother replying or just wait for the claim, with the others we waited for the claim as we weren't sure what do do as we’re new to it, if there is any advantage in writing back now to BW for when it inevitably goes to court I will, otherwise will just let them waste their money sending their chain letters.

I have sent the subject access requests to both.

This post has been edited by Scrumpy99: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 13:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 14:25
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Always reply to a Letter Before Claim but wait until you've seen the lease
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 14:40
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Those visitor space signs are not offering a contract to park not mentioning a charge so on what basis do they justify the charge? It cannot be a penalty, not allowed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scrumpy99
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 15:11
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,510



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 15:25) *
Always reply to a Letter Before Claim but wait until you've seen the lease



I have not yet had a letter before claim, I had the one pcn letter from armtrac, appealed via email and then heard nothing more for over three years.

The letter from BW is the usual one saying it has been passed to them and to contact their “helpful team” to set up a payment plan. As if. So ignore them all until the letter before claim?

QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 15:40) *
Those visitor space signs are not offering a contract to park not mentioning a charge so on what basis do they justify the charge? It cannot be a penalty, not allowed.


That is the basis for my defence, it does not say there will be a charge, or how much for visitor spaces. Visitor spaces are also not noted on the tatty larger sign, which concentrates on parking without a permit. Disabled spaces are mentioned, however there are none ...

Will wait for the SAR info and the landlord to send me a copy of the lease.

As mentioned before, following the compliant to the ICO there had been a virtual deluge of mail from BW Legal with at least one letter arriving a day, I think I will put in a complaint to the SRA, as this is harassment and an unacceptable level of contact designed to intimidate and scare law abiding citizens into paying their spurious invoices.

Are they actual solicitors or debt collectors? Should I be contacting the FCA also? They have the same return address as the wonderful Lowell’s, are they one and the same? Jeez, if they are real solicitors imagine going to all that work to get a law degree and ending up working for them! laugh.gif

Here is a sign which is a bit clearer from the other side of the car park. A seagull has shown Armtrac what it thinks of them....

And this is the space it occurred, with the other style small sign and not the one in this pic.

As a previous poster commented, the tatty signage really does add to the ambiance, maybe that’s why they are scratching around for more money, to replace their signage.... biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Scrumpy99: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 15:12
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 17:03
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



BWL is a genuine solicitor that issues claims but these are roboclaims
It never sees any of its clients' documents until it's issued the claim and learns that it's been defended

At the moment it still has its debt collector hat on
Do any letters describe their additional charge as legal costs ?
If so, it can be used later as part of an SRA complaint

I wouldn't expect any support from the ICO
The response I had to numerous complaints is that parking companies aren't breaking any laws if they're demanding payment, even when they know it isn't owed

I wouldn't expect any support from the FCA either
Parking "debts" don't come under any legislation and therefore no regulatory authority
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scrumpy99
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 17:43
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,510



[attachment=66350:E16A9A47...2EF315A7.jpeg]
QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 18:03) *
BWL is a genuine solicitor that issues claims but these are roboclaims
It never sees any of its clients' documents until it's issued the claim and learns that it's been defended

At the moment it still has its debt collector hat on
Do any letters describe their additional charge as legal costs ?
If so, it can be used later as part of an SRA complaint

I wouldn't expect any support from the ICO
The response I had to numerous complaints is that parking companies aren't breaking any laws if they're demanding payment, even when they know it isn't owed

I wouldn't expect any support from the FCA either
Parking "debts" don't come under any legislation and therefore no regulatory authority


It only mentions “their client’s £60 legal fees”.

This post has been edited by Scrumpy99: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 18:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 18:16
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
Are they actual solicitors or debt collectors?


This is what their website tells you:

'A multi-award winning law firm specialising in volume collections, across both regulated and unregulated sectors, who are dual regulated through the FCA and SRA.

We employ around 265 people at our Leeds based office which in turn makes us the largest privately owned debt collection law firm in the UK
'.

Of that number, BWL employ only 6 qualified solicitors.

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/organi...Solicitors=True
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scrumpy99
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 18:18
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,510



QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 19:16) *
QUOTE
Are they actual solicitors or debt collectors?


This is what their website tells you:

'A multi-award winning law firm specialising in volume collections, across both regulated and unregulated sectors, who are dual regulated through the FCA and SRA.

We employ around 265 people at our Leeds based office which in turn makes us the largest privately owned debt collection law firm in the UK
'.

Of that number, BWL employ only 6 qualified solicitors.

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/organi...Solicitors=True


Wow - I wonder what awards they have won laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 18:53
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



It only mentions “their client’s £60 legal fees”

That's exactly what I hoped to find

Small Claims Court doesn't allow legal fees to recovered
The only exception is the £50 legal representative fee to issue the claim

If BWL issues a claim, the £60 will be included
Your defence can then say that the signed Statement of Truth (Particulars of Claim) contains a falsehood and should be struck out as an abuse of process

The complaint to the SRA can similarly say that BWL has signed a claim that it knows to be untrue

This post has been edited by Redivi: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 18:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scrumpy99
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 19:30
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,510



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 19:53) *
It only mentions “their client’s £60 legal fees”

That's exactly what I hoped to find

Small Claims Court doesn't allow legal fees to recovered
The only exception is the £50 legal representative fee to issue the claim

If BWL issues a claim, the £60 will be included
Your defence can then say that the signed Statement of Truth (Particulars of Claim) contains a falsehood and should be struck out as an abuse of process

The complaint to the SRA can similarly say that BWL has signed a claim that it knows to be untrue


Surely it is a generic letter from BWL and everybody could do this as a defence? Is the falsehood the £60 added on?

We have queried the double recovery in an ongoing claim, their response is attached.

Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scrumpy99
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 19:53
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 1 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,510



Sorry, on looking at it again - it says legal costs not fees - does that make a difference? Attached

This post has been edited by Scrumpy99: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 - 07:03
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 1 Sep 2019 - 20:21
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



None whatsoever

Costs on the small claims track

27.14

(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies.
(Rules 46.11 and 46.13 make provision in relation to orders for costs made before a claim has been allocated to the small claims track)
(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –
(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim
which –
(i) are payable under Part 45; or
(ii) would be payable under Part 45 if that Part applied to the claim;
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:14
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here