Claim No.3 Excel / BW Legal

So here's the defence I used in my original case. All advice, tips, suggestions, builds, add-ins, removals gratefully accepted. Thanks

Statement of Defence: Claim No. XXXXXXXX; Date: xx/06/2016

It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the
vehicle in question.

However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant
on the following grounds:-
1. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the date in
question.
2. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being
complied with.
a) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the
Defendant as the registered keeper under PoFA, the Claimant has
failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired
any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot
identify the driver.
b) The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully
complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice'
of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time and
with mandatory wording
c) The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is
liable based on ‘reasonable assumption’. PATAS and POPLA Lead
Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified
that with regards to keeper liability, 'There is no ‘reasonable
presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the
driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort'
(2015).

3. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]
UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied
contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear
offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and
the interests of the landholder. Strict compliance with the BPA
Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver
who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after
exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this
material case.

4. The signage on and around the site in question was small,
unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking
Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking
Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the
IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The
claimant was also formerly a member of the BPA, whose requirements
they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed
with driver to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid
in 28 days.

5. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this
claim. The proper Claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is
required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the
landholder to Excel Parking Services Ltd.
a) Excel Parking Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the
land
b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being
produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing
authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I
have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to
issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no
locus standi to bring this case.

6. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known
about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to
discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

7. The claimant has yet to respond to part 18 Request sent by
the defendant to BW Legal and Excel Parking Services Ltd on the
xx/06/2016.
a) A request to explain if Excel Parking Services Ltd are making a
claim as an agent of the landowner or making the claim as occupier
in their own right.
b) A request to explain if the amount claimed by Excel Parking
Services Ltd is for a breach of contract or a contractual sum.
c) A request to provide copies of the signs on which Excel Parking
Services Ltd rely and confirm the signs were in situ on the date
of the event. Also to provide the date the signs were installed.
d) A request to confirm that the signs were at the entrance to the
site on the date in question. Also to confirm that the signs meet
the British Parking Association's Code of Practice Appendix B
(Entrance signs) or the Independent Parking Committee’s Schedule
1.

8. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged,
so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the
Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic
contract disputes for the following reasons:-
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
c) The Claimant is not the landholder and suffers no loss
whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in
question
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate
to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore
unconscionable.
e) The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference
to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour
type car parks.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to
recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a
Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover
additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief
that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and
it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred.
Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them
as 'Legal representative’s costs'. These cannot be recovered in
the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.

10. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a
trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landholder
can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant,
and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a
matter would be limited to the landholder themselves claiming for
a nominal sum.

11. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is
denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled
to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim
with immediate effect.

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence,
xx/06/2016 are true.

Signed: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Fruitcake wrote: »

Have the scammers mentioned Elliot vs Loake? I'm assuming you know that a judge has called it Bunkum and not relevant. Info is on the Prankster's blog site.

No, they haven't responded to my defence. I am, however, going to use info from the Prankster's blog to slam dunk E vs L in my other 2 cases.