Letter of Claim from BW Legal re parking infingement Peel Centre Stockport

[Gnarly]

Hi,

I am hoping that someone can advise me on the course of action I should take regarding my most recent letter from BW Legal in reference to a parking infringement at the Peel Centre in June 2012.

Briefly, the car in question (of which I was at the time the registered keeper) was parked in a 'disabled' parking spot without displaying a valid 'Blue Badge'. A valid parking ticket was displayed in the car. The driver at the time had no idea that the space was a 'disabled' space due to the lack of visible signs at the time. I am in possession of the original PCN and the parking ticket that was displayed at the time.

I believe from my research online that, after a number of letters from Excel parking, Roxburghe dept collectors, Graham White solicitors and now BW Legal that I may have reached the stage where is important that I make a response. I have attached a copy of the latest letter to this post.

The following is a list of points that I believe I could include in my letter:

1. I am not under any obligation to reveal the driver of the car and, because of the date of the offense, cannot be held liable as the registered keeper?
2. There were insufficient signs that the parking space in question was reserved solely for the use of disabled drivers?
3. The 'fine' in question is excessive for infringement as a parking ticket had been purchased and was displayed in the car?

Please can someone help me? Am I right that I do need to reply? Do these things all need mentioning in my response or should I just mention one of them? If I mention all of them, is there an order that they should be in?

Many many thanks to anyone who takes the time to reply.
I am a primary school teacher who would much prefer to spend time planning lessons for my class but, from my online reading, I am well aware of Excel parking, the Peel Centre and now BW Legal and their campaigns to elicit large 'fines' from the unwary public of Stockport and I am happy to play my part in trying to ensure fairness.

Gnarly

[Kati]

Re: Letter of Claim from BW Legal re parking infingement Peel Centre Stockport

tagging [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] xx

[mystery1]

Re: Letter of Claim from BW Legal re parking infingement Peel Centre Stockport

I am not under any obligation to reveal the driver of the car and, because of the date of the offense, cannot be held liable as the registered keeper?

correct.

There were insufficient signs that the parking space in question was reserved solely for the use of disabled drivers?

You could but it definitely should be in any subsequent defence.

The 'fine' in question is excessive for infringement as a parking ticket had been purchased and was displayed in the car?

http://nebula.wsimg.com/de2566ded6f0...&alloworigin=1 This was after the Court of Appeal but before the Supreme Court. Still to be really tested but should work alongside Consumer Rights Act 2015 schedule 2 6 A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails tofulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.



I would edit to suit.

M1

Edit to suit












Dear BW Legal,




I write in response to your final notice which i take to be a letter before action dated 20th June 2016, the contents of which are noted.






As the pre action protocols expect us to exchange sufficient information to understand each others position please forward to myself the original parking charge notice and a picture of the signs at the location as well as the operators contract which allows them to operate at the site (or indeed confirmation they own the land in question).




As well as the information already requested please answer the following questions :-


What type of car park is it ?


What contravention gives a cause of action ?


Who contravened your rules ?


Who you are pursuing ?



Not only will this information help comply with the pre action protocols it will also help achieve the over riding objective.



Having done some research on your claims i request that if you ignore my requests for information that your claim complies with




CPR 16




Contents of the claim form
16.2
(1) The claim form must –
(a) contain a concise statement of the nature of the claim


Contents of the particulars of claim
16.4
(1) Particulars of claim must include –
(a) a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies;






Practice direction 16




Other matters to be included in particulars of claim




7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.




Practice direction 22


Who may sign the statement of truth
3.1 In a statement of case, a response or an application notice, the statement of truth must be signed by


(2) the legal representative of the party or litigation friend.




3.7 Where a party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth on his behalf. The statement signed by the legal representative will refer to the client’s belief, not his own. In signing he must state the capacity in which he signs and the name of his firm where appropriate.


3.9 The individual who signs a statement of truth must print his full name clearly beneath his signature.


3.10 A legal representative who signs a statement of truth must sign in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.






Practice direction 7E




Signature
10 Any provision of the CPR which requires a document to be signed by any person is satisfied by that person entering their name on an online form.



I would note that this was before keeper liability come in to force and state that i was not driving.


I await your response.




Yours sincerely








Send via email if possible.




M1

[Gnarly]

Re: Letter of Claim from BW Legal re parking infingement Peel Centre Stockport

Thank-you very much Mystery1 for taking the time to respond to me. I am in the process of formulating my reply using your suggestions.

Please can I just clarify (I am not familiar with legalese in any way)...
Where it says 'Having done some research on your claims i request that if you ignore my requests for information that your claim complies with CPR 16' - is this correct or should it say '....that your claim has not complied with CPR16'? Please excuse my ignorance.

Also - do you think that I should include a mention of the Cargius case as an indication to BW Legal that their suggestion that the Beavis case 'eliminates the main defence' that I may have may not be relevant in this case?

Thank-you again for taking the time to respond to me
Gnarly

[mystery1]

Re: Letter of Claim from BW Legal re parking infingement Peel Centre Stockport

Where it says 'Having done some research on your claims i request that if you ignore my requests for information that your claim complies with CPR 16' - is this correct or should it say '....that your claim has notcomplied with CPR16'? Please excuse my ignorance.

We can't say the claim doesn't until they issue it and we see it. All we can say is if they do please make it compliant, so the wording is correct.

Also - do you think that I should include a mention of the Cargius case as an indication to BW Legal that their suggestion that the Beavis case 'eliminates the main defence' that I may have may not be relevant in this case?

Absolutely.

M1

[Gnarly]

Re: Letter of Claim from BW Legal re parking infingement Peel Centre Stockport

Ok, I see it now. I was reading it incorrectly, Thanks for that.

i will get on with formulating a paragraph arguing with their suggestion that Beavis is relevant.

Thanks again for your help with this.
GNarly

[Gnarly]

Re: Letter of Claim from BW Legal re parking infingement Peel Centre Stockport

Inresponse to your assertion that the case of Parking Eye Limited v Beavis (2015)UKSC67 eliminates a main defence should the matter go to Court, I would arguethat the Peel Centre car park (which differs from the car park in question in theBeavis case in that it is not a free car park, but one that which requires afee to be paid) was, at the time of the alleged contravention, not clearlymarked with either notices informing a driver of the terms and conditions underwhich they were parking nor was the particular parking space in question designatedas a ‘disabled’ bay in a manner which would be easily discernible to a driveras being a car parking bay which was subject to the requirement to display avalid disabled persons badge. Additionally, I would contend that the initial claim of £100 isexcessive and disproportionate to any loss suffered by Excel since a validparking ticket had been purchased and was displayed in the car.

Hi Mystery1 - hoping you are around to take a look at this.
I have composed this in response to their assertion that Beavis eliminates any defence. Do you think it is fit for purpose or is it too wordy and over the top?

[mystery1]

Re: Letter of Claim from BW Legal re parking infingement Peel Centre Stockport

http://nebula.wsimg.com/1bb26d17be44...&alloworigin=1

Throw in a reference to Excel v Cutts to the unclear signage :okay:

M1

[Gnarly]

Re: Letter of Claim from BW Legal re parking infingement Peel Centre Stockport

Hi Mystery1
You said 'send via email if possible'. Is there a reason for that?
Should I also send a copy by post or is email enough?
Cheers
Gnarly

[mystery1]

Re: Letter of Claim from BW Legal re parking infingement Peel Centre Stockport

You said 'send via email if possible'. Is there a reason for that?

I'm a miserable bast@rd.

And post goes missing sometimes.

M1