Excel - BW Legal County Court Business Centre - Claim Form

sct73

I have just received a 'Claim Form' from what looks like the County Court Business Centre. For a PCN issued on 8/5/15 for a total amount of £237.94

To date I have had no correspondence from Excel in relation to this.
I have had a look through the Newbies thread but am unsure about which route to take.

Is this an actual court claim form?
How should I proceed?

The particulars of the Claim are as follows

The Claimant's clim is for the sum of £100 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on DATE (issue date) at TIME at CARPARK LOCATION.

The PCN relates to a CAR MAKE under registration REGISTRATION.
The terms of the PCN allowed the defendant 28 days from the issue date to pay the PCN, but the defendant failed to do so.
Despite demand having been made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The claim also includes Statutory Interst pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum, a daily rate of 0.02 from ISSUE DATE to LETTER DATE being an amount of £8.94
The claimant also claims £54 contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and Conditions


Any help would be greatly appreciated

Redx

plenty of help on here in ongoing and previous but recent 2016 threads about the same matters with various PPC,s , mainly UKPC and CEL but a lot of recent stuff on here and on pepipoo forums about VCS or Excel and BW LEGAL , plus court cases issued by Northampton centre

yes its likely to be genuine , try phoning the court or better still logon and acknowledge it (put nothing at all in the defence box) and this will prove that it is genuine

post #1 of the NEWBIES thread tells you what to do, in the bargepole link, plus reading parking pranksters court guide

use the forum search box and words like BW LEGAL £54 , BW LEGAL , COURT GUIDE etc to find recent threads and learn from those , plus same over on pepipoo too

like this recent one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5498035

and https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5502367

and https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5485700

and https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5493715

thats just 4 of dozens you can learn from

ie:- do the research and ask for help when you have done all the basics and read similar court case threads as the issues are generally the same , as will be the defences too

then start on your skeleton (holding defence) , after acknowledging the claim online and saving your login details

so more reading , more research , understand the process , start on the holding defence

sct73

Thanks Redx, I wasnt sure if it was different, with me not recieving any notification prior to this letter.

Redx

it can feature in your defence but the other defence points also need to be bullet pointed for now and expanded upon later

you are disputing an invoice that was never received and now a court claim in the small claims court for non-payment of the not-received invoice

you defend it using legal arguments including the fact that nothing was received and you dispute the validity of bringing the claim to court

they may have evidence that they have sent paperwork out , debt collector letters , the pcn itself etc, to the address registered with the DVLA

could be various reasons why it wasnt received , like not updating the address with the dvla for example ( a possible £1000 fine by the DVLA if true )

they will outline the basis of the claim later, but you must still go through the motions as only a fool would ignore a court claim (MCOL)

the £54 cannot be claimed anyway, there is plenty of info about this here and on pepipoo forums , plus if you google it ( BW LEGAL £54 )

this may be a good help to you to get a grip on this topic as its post beavis

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5373288

and this one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5490298

and another one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5472316

and another one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5476500

and

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5490266

now please dont say the topic hasnt been covered regularly

sct73

Thank you for your assistance Redx, I have the following initial response for my MCOL Defense, is there anything I should add or is this bullet point list sufficient? As I have no documentation from Excel, If I was the driver I am unable to recall the full facts, especially how long the car was parked (this information is not given in the claim form) I believe that the machine does not accept notes and that the driver may have had to visit local stores to try and obtain change. Once this had proved unsuccessful the vehicle was moved to a different location









The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.

• The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
• The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
• The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies
• The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
• The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty
• No documentation nor notification has ever been received by the defendant in order to supress or respond to the charges raised by the claimant
  
  
  The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. As the claimant has not provided this information, signage details have been inferred from stock photographs and the details may not be correct. Minor variants in text may occur. All references to signage therefore, are subject to change once the full particulars of claim have been provided.

The_Slithy_Tove

sct73 wrote: »

The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty

You are clearly looking at old cases, as this is no longer a valid argument. Make sure you are gleaning information from cases initiated THIS YEAR, and preferably the last 3-4 months. There are plenty of them around.

sct73

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

You are clearly looking at old cases, as this is no longer a valid argument. Make sure you are gleaning information from cases initiated THIS YEAR, and preferably the last 3-4 months. There are plenty of them around.

Thanks Slithy would this be a more suitable response? Reading through the different cases I am unsure just how to word this and how much information to include. I have been doing a lot of reading to try and get myself properly versed, but am starting to panic as I am running out of time to submit the initial defence. As I am struggling to understand the legal terminology fully.


[FONT="&amp]Statement of Defence[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]
[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp][DATE}[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]
[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]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:-[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]1. [/FONT][FONT="&amp]The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the date in question.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]2. Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, 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.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]3. [/FONT][FONT="&amp]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 landowner. 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.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]5. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Excel Parking Services Ltd.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]a) Excel Parking Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]7. 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:- [/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]a) The Claimant has no commercial justification[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]b) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]c) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]8. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of the PCN and was not the driver, as such 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/with mandatory wording.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]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 "[/FONT][FONT="&amp]Contractual costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]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 landowner 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 landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum. [/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]In my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.

Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.[/FONT]

[FONT="&amp]I believe that the facts stated in this[/FONT][FONT="&amp] Statement of defence, ([/FONT][FONT="&amp]date I intend to submit[/FONT][FONT="&amp]) are true."[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]
[/FONT]

Signed

sct73

Can someone help clear something up for me, please? On the initial defence on MCOL do I leave that blank or do I need to bullet point my defence as above? I have read through so many posts on here but find the information slightly confusing. Sorry

bod1467

When you acknowledge the claim you leave the defence box blank.

I think when you submit your defence online then it is a skeleton defence as above.

If/when it comes to a hearing then you submit your full defence pack (by post?) to both the court and the claimant, and take a sealed/closed* copy of your pack (including the claimants evidence pack) to court at the time of the hearing.

* Tied with a red ribbon, and only untie in front of the judge. This stops the claimant's solicitor from dropping new evidence on you at court.