PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

County Court Telephone Mediation Appointment with BW Legal - Please advise.
Dan104
post Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 14:41
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,143



This is concerning an NCP Unpaid Parking Charge Court Mediation with BW Legal Appointment in 2 weeks time

Alleged contravention was in April 2018

We have also both completed the Directions questionnaire.

There claim is basically stating I did not pay the parking charge fee.

Amount claimed and interest £178.08

Court fee £25

Solicitor Costs £50

Total £253.08

To give you a better idea...

My defence to the claim is as follows...

There was no need for the Claimant to have issued a County Court
claim, as there has never been a denial on my part to pay the car
park fee.

There was no deliberate act to avoid payment of the parking fee

The machine I tried to use was out of order.

I have never refused to make the initial parking fee payment.

I have written offering to pay the parking fee charge which was
refused by the claimant

The claimant's claim is for an unfair excessive amount and costs.

I have wrote to the claimant and its agents via recorded delivery
(signed for) on several occasions in trying to resolve the matter.
They have either not responded or have never answered my questions
and issues raised.

I have never been supplied with photographic evidence of any
displayed signage of the parking terms and conditions in a clear
and legible manner, and showing that the areas and parking zones
were fully lit, with adequate lighting in place, prior to or on
the actual date and time of the alleged parking contravention.

There was inadequate car park lighting in place at the time of the
alleged parking contravention, despite it being a wet and dark
evening.

There has been no confirmation of who the actual driver was at the
time of the alleged contravention, just a parking charge notice
issued to the vehicle registered keeper.

I have not been shown any photographic evidence of any other
working car park pay machine that were in place on the site,
prior to, or at the time and date of the alleged parking
contravention.

The Claimant and representative have failed to address all the
issues that I have raised, or supplied me with requested
information. This shows that the claimant has not followed the
legal requirements under the Freedom of Information Act.

The only photographic evidence of signage that they have supplied to me was
dated July 2018 when the alleged contravention was actually in the April 2018.

Please advise me, and what do you suggest I should negotiate at the Mediation.

Also if mediation does not resolve the issue, and should they decide to proceed to a court hearing,
Is it true that there is a cap of £200 in what I would have to pay them should I loose
the case..
​​​​​​​
Thank you.


--------------------
DKnight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 57)
Advertisement
post Sat, 12 Oct 2019 - 14:41
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Dan104
post Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 19:36
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,143




Attached Image


--------------------
DKnight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dan104
post Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 21:08
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,143



QUOTE (Dan104 @ Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 20:36) *

Attached Image



--------------------
DKnight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dan104
post Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 21:50
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,143



Attached Image
QUOTE (Dan104 @ Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 20:36) *

Attached Image



--------------------
DKnight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dan104
post Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 22:02
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,143



Attached Image


--------------------
DKnight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 03:24
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,067
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



They are correct with respect to the contract, if the driver couldn't pay, they should have left.

With respect to the contract, they can say what they like, if the Judge decides they must produce the contract and land owners 'name' in order to prove they have the right to bring action, then they will have to do so or risk their case being dismissed.

A Judge will usually accept they have a right to operate there simply based on the fact that there are signs all over the place that the landholder/owner hasn't removed, what that doesn't establish is the right to bring a legal action for any sum owed and THAT is the better way of challenging it.

Of course this is NCP who unusually amongst PPC are often actually the car park owner (or landholder) and operator as well. Ask the council who pays business rates on the car park, if it's NCP this is likely a dead argument.


--------------------
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
Dan104
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 07:52
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,143



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 04:24) *
They are correct with respect to the contract, if the driver couldn't pay, they should have left.

With respect to the contract, they can say what they like, if the Judge decides they must produce the contract and land owners 'name' in order to prove they have the right to bring action, then they will have to do so or risk their case being dismissed.

A Judge will usually accept they have a right to operate there simply based on the fact that there are signs all over the place that the landholder/owner hasn't removed, what that doesn't establish is the right to bring a legal action for any sum owed and THAT is the better way of challenging it.

Of course this is NCP who unusually amongst PPC are often actually the car park owner (or landholder) and operator as well. Ask the council who pays business rates on the car park, if it's NCP this is likely a dead argument.


Rookie the Council have confirmed that the Landowner is NCP, who also pays the business rates. They qualify for business rates relief with rateable value being
£5600


--------------------
DKnight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 08:18
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,067
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



So the contract is obviously a dead end then!


--------------------
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
Dan104
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 11:37
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,143



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 09:18) *
So the contract is obviously a dead end then!


What do you mean by contract is a dead end?


--------------------
DKnight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 11:44
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,782
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



If they are the landholders/occupiers/owners of the land, they don't need a contract with the landholder to operate there or take legal action in respect of any alleged debts arising from it.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dan104
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 17:13
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,143



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 12:44) *
If they are the landholders/occupiers/owners of the land, they don't need a contract with the landholder to operate there or take legal action in respect of any alleged debts arising from it.


What does that mean then regarding this case? and How will that help me?

Does that mean i am only liable for the £100 PCN then and no legal costs. What about the court issue fee and possible hearing fee and interest on top

This post has been edited by Dan104: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 19:02


--------------------
DKnight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 18:05
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,740
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



It should be clear!
You can't go down a landholder contract route, as they're the landholder. So you don't use THAT argument.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dan104
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 18:18
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,143



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 19:05) *
It should be clear!
You can't go down a landholder contract route, as they're the landholder. So you don't use THAT argument.


Thank you for clearing that up.


--------------------
DKnight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dan104
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 18:46
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,143



ACCORDING TO A LETTER FROM BW LEGAL THE ORIGINAL BALANCE IS MADE UP OF OF THE PCN (£100) AND THE CLIENTS INITIAL LEGAL COSTS OF £60 DETAILED IN AND AROUND THE CAR PARK OR ON THE SIGNAGE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

I HAVE STUDIED THE SIGNAGE AND I CANT FIND ANY WHERE ON THEM THAT
MENTION LEGAL COSTS OF £60

THE SIGNAGE SAYS - A PCN MAY BE ISSUED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN AND AROUND THE CAR PARK - THIS INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING BREACHES..................

THIS IS VERY MISLEADING AND IMPLIES THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO FIND SIGNAGE IN AND AROUND THE CAR PARK OUTLINING ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS NOT JUST THE BREACHES. CAN ANYONE ELABORATE ON THIS PLEASE. I GUESS I'M CLUTCHING AT STRAWS NOW LOL BUT THANK YOU


--------------------
DKnight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 19:53
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,803
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



They can't claim for their " initial legal costs" and they know thus.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dan104
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 13:19
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,143



Mediation is on Wednesday. What do you think i should offer or accept regarding a settlement? As realistically
i ain't gonna a win a hearing case, unless the judge strikes it out for there cheeky double recovery scam

thank you


--------------------
DKnight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 22:06
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 544
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



You accept what (if anything) you are prepared to pay to avoid court. If you don't mind going to court, then you can of course offer zero. Have a firm limit in mind before starting the mediation, so that you can't be cajoled into paying what they don't deserve.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dan104
post Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 07:04
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 12 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,143



QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 23:06) *
You accept what (if anything) you are prepared to pay to avoid court. If you don't mind going to court, then you can of course offer zero. Have a firm limit in mind before starting the mediation, so that you can't be cajoled into paying what they don't deserve.


Hi Dave, what would you do in my position? I thought maximum i should offer is the initial PCN charge
and not all the extra charges they have tried putting on top.

Thank you


--------------------
DKnight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 08:37
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,740
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Well, what do you feel OK offering?
This is your decision to make, not ours.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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, 14th November 2019 - 16:00
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.