Court papers ref BW legal/Excel

Ok so now I am drafting the defence, and awaiting the return from BW Legal on my request for info, so below is how far I have got any comments advice is welcome, loadsofchildren I note your comments above, thanks

1. The defendent was not the driver of the vehicle for the period in question.
2. The claimant has not identified the driver.
3. The vehicle was insured for three people and the defendant was not the main driver on the insurance so the assumption that the defendent was the driver for the period in question is erroneous.
4. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Defendant does not know who the driver was. He has made reasonable enquiries of third parties who were authorized to drive the said vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. None have admitted that they were the driver because they cannot remember, and the Defendant cannot remember who used the car on the date in question xxxxx. The Defendant has no means of finding out who the driver was, and in any event is not obliged to do so by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or any other legislation, or pursuant to any contractual obligation.
As a previous keeper of the vehicle the defendant has requested from the claimant several times
a: evidence regarding the alleged contravention.
b: evidence of the identity of the driver.
The above requests have been complied with.
5. With regard to the Claimant’s assertion that the Defendant, as keeper of the vehicle, should be presumed to be the driver unless he sufficiently rebuts this presumption, which it claims is a principle established by Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36, I dispute it:
The case relied upon does not provide that any such presumption can or should be made, nor that it is for the Defendant to rebut it. A claim is for the Claimant to prove and there is no reverse burden of proof in respect of parking charges; in addition the case was a crimal case.
In the case relied upon there was overwhelming evidence that the keeper of the car was driving it at the relevant time – there is no such evidence in this Claim..
6. To be liable as the “Keeper” of a vehicle under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act” and “the Schedule” respectively), paragraph 4(2)of the Schedule clearly states that this is only if each of the four conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 of the Schedule have been complied with. The Claimant has failed to comply with those conditions, as set out below. Having failed to comply with the conditions, there is no legal basis whatsoever to enforce the parking charge against the Defendant as the vehicle’s registered keeper. There is no other basis, at common law or by statute, for the Defendant to be held liable for the parking charges which are the subject matter of this Claim
7. The claimant may rely on Parkingeye vs Beaver which does not apply in this situation as the car park in that case was a free car park with time restrictions.
There was a free parking licence offered. There was a “legitimate interest” in the contract/parking charges being enforced so that visitors did not overstay the two hour free period in a retail park so as to ensure a turnover of visitors to the retail units, and a complex contractual arrangement. All of this together disengaged the “penalty rule”. None of those facts apply in this case and in respect of the Relevant Land: the Claimant has failed to follow its binding Code of Practice issued by the IPC; the Defendant was not the driver; it is not common ground that a contract was agreed; a contract cannot have been formed because the wording on the signage was inadequate, the signs were not clear or prominent, they were small and no attention was drawn to them; the commercial interest in ensuring a changeover of visitors to what was a retail site, and the requirement of the Claimant to meet its costs by recovering parking charges do not apply to this case. The penalty rule therefore applies to this case and the charges claimed are quite clearly a penalty and are not recoverable.
8. The claimants signage specifically cites the driver as with whom a contract is agreed,
9. The claimants letters to myself have again specifically cited the driver of the car.
10. As this alleged contravention occurred in August 2012, it is unreasonable of the claimant to assume that it can be recalled who was the driver at the time.
11. If a valid contract exists, the parking charges sought amount to a penalty which is unenforceable and is an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
12. If the claimant feels that he has a justified claim why has it taken him so long to pursue it, as the first communication with myself was in August 2016.
13. Why has the claimant tried to harrass the defendant into paying by contacting the defendant by telephone 3 times since August 2016
14. The claimant cannot show any loss, as the car park as mentioned is sparsely populated on an evening when the supposed contravention occurred and so would have sufficient spaces to accommodate any vehicle during the time period in question.
15. As the alleged offence occurred 4 years 5 months ago it is unreasonable for the claimant to chase after the alleged contravention and expect any persons involved in it to remember a minor event such as parking in the car park in question.
16. The Notice to Keeper is not a valid Notice to Keeper served in accordance with Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question
17. The Particulars of Claim disclose no cause of action and are in breach of several aspects of the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”), so much so that they are incoherent and do not amount to any recognisable claim. They should be struck out;

Hi Guys, a bump for this, not in a great rush but want to get it done and then start on the witness statement.
I noticed that Skipton seems to be conducive to defending these claims from BW legal, would it be worth it to get the hearing done there??
It would be a nice day out for me and the missus!!!

Morning all, well tried to file my defence this morning and the web page would not accept the electronic copy, also the phone number for support 08456015935 states that the number is not in service !!!!!!!!
so e-mailed it to the customer services address.
Any advice on further action to ensure they have got the defence.