Excel Parking/BW Legal N1 form received

zacbrownband1

Hi Guys

Thanks in advance for any help I receive with this, I've spent the last 10 days going through the forums and the help you guys offer is truly priceless to the average Joe like myself.

I've received an N1 form from BW Legal on behalf of Excel Parking for parking at the peel centre in Stockport in March of 2015! I ignored the initial paperwork that came through from Excel and heard no more until BW Legal got involved, they sent me a
couple of letters then I received the claim form. The claim is for the amount of £239.26, broken down as follows

Amount claimed 164.26
Court fee 25.00
Legal rep's cost's £50.00
Total Amount 239.26

After reading through the forums I have sent back my AOS Online and stated that I intend to defend in full. is my next step now to write a bullet point defence ? if so, I was looking for a little help in preparing it correctly, my main grounds are as follows

Poor signage at car park ( Peel centre is famous for it)

Numerous people have access to my car at any one time, I have a named driver insured on it also, so could in no way be positive it was myself driving.

The amount charged is disproportionate to the alleged offence.

And no contract between the landowner and Excel parking

I was wondering if I had any other grounds, and also what is the best 'legal' way to put these down in my initial MCOL Defence.

Thanks again

The_Deep

The amount they are claiming is probably in excess of that which is allowed. Were they to take you to court and win, it is unlikely that a judge would award them £200. If they lose, warn them that you will be seeking your full costs under CPR27.14(2)(g).

You should therefore formally complain to the SRA that they are attempting to obtain from you monies to which they are not entitled, misrepresentation, fraud, whatever.

https://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

Have they mentioned Beavis, refusal of credit, CCJs? There may be some mileage in complaining about that as well. Search here and on ppp for a letter from poster Gan asking them dome very awkward quesrions.

Redx

this thread below tells you most of what you need to know , especially the posts by HO87 on page 2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5505546

also post #1 of the NEWBIES sticky thread, court sub-section

and parking pranksters court guide

also , put the search words PEEL CENTRE or STOCKPORT into the forum search box to find similar threads and help

zacbrownband1

Hi guys, thanks for all your help thus far, Im currently filing out my statement of defence on mcol, and using HO87's wonderful defence as a basis, but it appears on my screen at least to be longer than 122 lines and I've still yet to fill in my own particulars on it, any idea's which bits i'd be ok to take out/trim?

Thanks

zacbrownband1

Sorry, just to add, all the points made in HO87'S Defence are relevant to my case, so thats where im struggling

Redx

bear in mind its not the full defence, so for now you need bullet points that detail each point that will be brought up later

its later down the line that you expand them into full arguments etc

this is why one name for it is "skeleton defence" , you flesh it out later

I think that kayleigh shortened it to fit when she did it

zacbrownband1

H guy's, just a quick update on the this case, I filed my defense online as shown below, it's been received by the court and BW Legal, they've also responded to my part 18 request but the pictures they have sent through of the signage are from August 2015 and the alleged offence took place in March 2015, dont know if this will help at all? I've received acknowledgement that they intend to proceed to court and am about to fill in my n180, I am assuming I am to tick the box about mediation with a no? also, my nearest court is Manchester, just wondered if anyone knew of the general success rate of cases at that particular court.

Thanks for all your help


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. 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.

2. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Vehicle Control Services Ltd.

3. Vehicle Control Services Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) Vehicle Control Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land.
(ii) 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 right to bring action regarding this claim.

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(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

5. 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.

6. 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 expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver

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:-
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 landowner 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 disproportiona..te 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.

8. In addition, the Claimants Solicitor responded inadequately, to a part 18 request for more information to clarify the particulars of their claim with regards to the following:-
i) When asked how the Claimant asserted the Keeper of the vehicle is liable, the response was that the keeper is liable on the basis of "reasonable assumption". This further validates point 1 of the defence, that the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. 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).
ii) When asked if the Claimant is making a claim as the land owner or an agent of the landowner, they replied it was the latter. As mentioned in point 2 of the defence, the proper claimant is the landowner and strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the claimant. No evidence of this contract existence has been provided.
iv) When asked to provide copies of the signage on the date of the incident which the claimant relies on to confirm a contract was entered into, none was supplied.
v) When confirmation was requested that the signs at the entrance to the site on the date in question and that these met the British Parking Association's Code of Practice Appendix B (Entrance signs) or the Independent Parking Committee’s Schedule 1, the claimant did not confirm to which of these codes of practice they are subjected to.
vi) When requested for a copy of the PCN Terms and Conditions on date of event, this was not provided.

9. 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.

I believe that the facts stated in this statement of defence are
true.

Sean O'connor

The_Deep

BWL are currently being investigated by the SRA after hundreds of complaints about various breaches of the rules. It is likely that they may not be around for much longer.

Have you complained to the SRA? if not now is a good time,
Duncan Allen

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor.page

include "reasonable assumption" (did they reference Elliott v Loake), demanding monies to which they had no entitlement, inappriate mention of Beavis, threats of a CCJ. The more complaints the SRA receive the more likely this firm is to be put out of business. Read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5509488

Coupon-mad

I've received acknowledgement that they intend to proceed to court and am about to fill in my n180, I am assuming I am to tick the box about mediation with a no?

Mediation is a no. Any hearing will be at your local court - but any court is a lottery!

Oh, and do not reply to any private message from a poster with less than 1000 posts to their name here. We deal with these issues openly on the forum and any pm could be from anyone at all (even the parking firm) and is not recommended to be replied to/read.

Grimble

Add, I want to see the advertising consent for signs and renewals not just a statement they have it, because as you are aware you client will be committing a criminal offence under the Town & Country Planning Act 2007 if it is not in place, I believe this has already been brought to your attention and you have a duty to inform the court of this fact.

zacbrownband1

Hi Guys

Got my big day in court this week with excel/bwl, just wondered if you had any last minute advice before i go in

Thanks