Excel Parking, BW Legal and now what looks like court papers

Xanthanan

Guys, thanks for your replies, I will e-mail the part 18 request only to BW legal in the next 15 minutes.

I will also email an overview of my experience to Watchdog separately and am happy to contribute with as little or as much as they desire. That may be today or may be after my trip to the US, depends on how much leisure time I can generate before I fly out

Also, thank you redx for pointing out what looks like another good point for my defence, I feel I may be overly repeating myself with the 'you guys are ace' sentiments but, well, you know.......

With that in mind I have added a quick point 12 to my part 18 before sending:

12. Please advise which (if any) professional association and code of practice your client adhered to on the date of the alleged offence.

Xanthanan

Back in the UK now and it never rains but it pours, my home broadband was (and still is) broken. Im waiting for BT to fix it but have managed to get alternative (but rather slow) connectivity to my home PC.

Two letters arrived from BW legal while I was on holiday:
The first (dated 25th August which must have arrived 1st Sept or later) advising that they had issued a county court claim and offering to take payment as I "failed to make payments on your above account" and had "helpful agents" waiting for my call.

This company seems more like a get rich quick scheme and less like a reputable legal company the more I see of it!

The second letter (dated 8th Sept and arrived before 16th Sept) is a terrible attempt (deliberately I guess) at answering my Part 18 questions. It is manually reproduced here (without headers and footers) Stuff in bold italics is where I have replaced actual details with generic details due to the public nature of this forum.

We write in reference to the above matter and your email received 30th August and we detail Excel's position below.

Excel's claim is for the sum of £xxx.xx and is in relation to monies (and legal expenses) owed pursuant to the PCN.

The PCN contravention (as stated on the PCN) occurred on date of 'offence' at Place name, Town ("the Car Park"), where the vehicle bearing registration number SC4M 0NE parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit.

We can confirm that a Claim was issued through Northampton County Court (CCBC) on 25th August 2016. Please file an Admission or Defence by 13 September 2016 or a County Court Judgment may be entered against you in default.

We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

They have failed to answer the majority of the questions in the part 18 request, in fact they have simply re-stated what was already on the court claims form in slightly different words. Is this a normal tactic? Do I have any legal backing to ask the court to wait for these replies or do I have to submit a defence without knowing what tricks they may spring?

My defence at present is based around the codes of practice in force at the time (Which COP was it?) and the fact that they should have followed them as they form the legal framework for this event.
Therefore I think

1) They have failed to prove WHO drove the vehicle (I hired it, there is no question of that)

2) If sufficient grace time to both enter and exit the location were allowed. Entry would allow time to park, read and understand ALL notices and contractual documents and if required pay the necessary fee. (The signage clearly states 10 minutes are allowed for that) Exiting at present is NOT documented and the COP clearly states the operators should allow such time. I say this was not given and have seen mention of a further 10 minutes earlier in this thread.

3) There is no provision for loading/unloading and the driver at no time PARKED, they were merely waiting for the goods (sofa and chairs) to be brought out of the business premises and loaded.

4) The first 'notice to keeper' may not have arrived 'in time' and did not have the correct accompanying documentation (as specified in the POF 2012 Schedule 4 parts 13/14)

5) They have failed to prove they have legal contracts to operate on that land etc. (All the missing info from the part 18 reply)

6) They are roboclaims (thanks CouponMad for that paragraph!) and are using the legal system to legitimise modern day highway robbery

Now I need to go and read a load of other defence documents so mine looks acceptable before I draft it and leave it here for critique.

In the meantime am I best to press BW Legal for the missing part 18 replies? Would it antagonise them if I were to suggest they had no driver, no contract and therefore no 'unpaid' PCN to prosecute so they should withdraw their claim?

USA by the way was fun, even if it was a little overshadowed by this hanging over my head

beamerguy

Xanthanan wrote: »

Back in the UK now and it never rains but it pours, my home broadband was (and still is) broken. Im waiting for BT to fix it but have managed to get alternative (but rather slow) connectivity to my home PC.

Two letters arrived from BW legal while I was on holiday:
The first (dated 25th August which must have arrived 1st Sept or later) advising that they had issued a county court claim and offering to take payment as I "failed to make payments on your above account" and had "helpful agents" waiting for my call.

This company seems more like a get rich quick scheme and less like a reputable legal company the more I see of it!

The second letter (dated 8th Sept and arrived before 16th Sept) is a terrible attempt (deliberately I guess) at answering my Part 18 questions. It is manually reproduced here (without headers and footers) Stuff in bold italics is where I have replaced actual details with generic details due to the public nature of this forum.

They have failed to answer the majority of the questions in the part 18 request, in fact they have simply re-stated what was already on the court claims form in slightly different words. Is this a normal tactic? Do I have any legal backing to ask the court to wait for these replies or do I have to submit a defence without knowing what tricks they may spring?

My defence at present is based around the codes of practice in force at the time (Which COP was it?) and the fact that they should have followed them as they form the legal framework for this event.
Therefore I think

1) They have failed to prove WHO drove the vehicle (I hired it, there is no question of that)

2) If sufficient grace time to both enter and exit the location were allowed. Entry would allow time to park, read and understand ALL notices and contractual documents and if required pay the necessary fee. (The signage clearly states 10 minutes are allowed for that) Exiting at present is NOT documented and the COP clearly states the operators should allow such time. I say this was not given and have seen mention of a further 10 minutes earlier in this thread.

3) There is no provision for loading/unloading and the driver at no time PARKED, they were merely waiting for the goods (sofa and chairs) to be brought out of the business premises and loaded.

4) The first 'notice to keeper' may not have arrived 'in time' and did not have the correct accompanying documentation (as specified in the POF 2012 Schedule 4 parts 13/14)

5) They have failed to prove they have legal contracts to operate on that land etc. (All the missing info from the part 18 reply)

6) They are roboclaims (thanks CouponMad for that paragraph!) and are using the legal system to legitimise modern day highway robbery

Now I need to go and read a load of other defence documents so mine looks acceptable before I draft it and leave it here for critique.

In the meantime am I best to press BW Legal for the missing part 18 replies? Would it antagonise them if I were to suggest they had no driver, no contract and therefore no 'unpaid' PCN to prosecute so they should withdraw their claim?

USA by the way was fun, even if it was a little overshadowed by this hanging over my head

Glad you had a great time in the US.
Welcome home to the UK scam allowed by government

I am wondering why BWLegal use the word "legal" if they ignore part 18

Complaints to the SRA about BWLegal are thick and fast.
Thus far there is nothing to prove that this bunch will win anything.

Your turn to complain to the SRA about BW(SO CALLED LEGAL)

Coupon-mad

Have a look at the thread about Theresa May's interest in this matter (well she's mainly said she's horrified about people getting CCJ's without a chance to defend):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5524754

But I would encourage anyone with a threat of court, or court claim from a PPC, to read that thread and send a wedge of photocopied of the trashy letter chain and court claim and pour your heart out about how this has affected you.

Don't email it to Mrs May, photocopy & POST it deliberately with a genuine letter saying what you think about whether she thinks it's fair that if you got a Council PCN you could pay £25 and it would be gone, yet when it's a bunch of photo-doctoring ex-clampers (Excel being owned by Simon Renshaw-Smith who can be Googled and found to have the nickname 'Captain Clampit' before he got rich on other people's money and apparently started mixing with Royalty at the Horse of the Year Show, etc.).

It seems in the UK, thanks to the DVLA and the warped system have have, people are fair game for £200 or more and a CCJ. It is astonishing that the UK Supreme Court (after the awful Beavis decision) effectively sent out a signal and 'green light' to parking sharks that consumers are fair game for 'private penalties and now ordinary people are having to duck the possibility - for SIX YEARS - of their credit being CLAMPED by an industry that operates close to the 'dirty tricks' edge of the law.

This is worse than car clamping - get angry and fight back - also copy in your MP.

OK - rant over but please join the campaign next week - but your defence needs to come first!

Is there anything in this example from pepipoo you can use?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108410&st=20

And look at more examples on that forum too, there are some good ones, do not miss any point as you can't add new defence point later, only expand on what you start out with.

HTH - show us a new draft if you add something and make sure you meet the deadline.

Xanthanan

Coupon-Mad you are a star, thank you. I have been writing a thread on the pepipoo site already (it will appear shortly, honest!) as I didn't have time before the hols and the slow temporary Broadband has made internet life ssslllooowwwww

I may however be understanding this a little more than I thought as I had already copied that exact defence into a word document earlier and intend to merge it with one you suggested a couple of weeks back (with the 'roboclaims' reference in it) before offering up what I hope will be a semi worthy attempt at a defence.

Coupon-mad

Gan's post #12 here makes some good points to include in a defence about 'cut & paste' claims by well-funded firms:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107886

You can be a bit scathing of the claimant/their solicitor's conduct as long as it's factual.

Xanthanan

OK I've had another couple of days stolen from my efforts as I was working away but I'm back home for the weekend now and hoping to submit my defence by close of play Sunday (to allow for processing on Monday as its due on Tuesday 27th)

Please see below, if its overly wordy, repeats itself, misses obvious points or is just generally terrible then please let me know. I realise how much time the regulars are spending looking after us newbies which must be a massive drain on your spare time. All I can manage in return? A big Thank You and hopefully I haven't missed all of the clues and salient points you have given me!

In particular I already see unnecessary repetition in the "strike out" requests but is that valid and indicative of a strong case (or of me pleading?) or have I just copied it around too many times and just need to make the request once?


Also is it worth adding an item explaining that I originally ignored all letters before the MCOL because of out of date advice on how to deal with what I perceived to be 'Rogue Parking tickets' by ignoring them.

1. I am the Defendant, XXXXXXXXXXX, DOB XX/XX/19XX, and reside at 99 xxxx xxxx, xxxx, xxxxxxx and I am the hirer of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

3. The claimant has failed to identify the driver of the vehicle and while the keeper (the hire company) and I (the hirer) have both been approached the driver has in no way been identified. I believe the burden of proof is with the claimant to prove who the ‘parking contract’ was made with unless they rely on POFA Schedule 4 items 13 & 14 to claim against the keeper or hirer. The claimant is widely known to ignore correct use of POFA and often declares that they do not rely on it for their claims. I can produce clear evidence that POFA was not followed in this case and invite the court to strike out the claim.

4. The claimant has also failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

5. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response to the questions asked.

6. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. An example of such a lack of diligence is the failure to include my surname in any documentation, especially the Claim Noxxxxxx dated 25 Aug 2016. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I again request the court strike out the claim.

7. The first PCN I received from the claimant was sent by post and arrived on xx/xx/20xx, some 70 calendar days after the 'offence' date of xx/xx/20xx. The documentation contained none of the supporting evidence required by POFA Schedule 4 items 13 & 14 and clearly exceeds the maximum number of days between some of the POFA regulated ‘events’. This invalidates their claim and I request the court strike out the claim.

8. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The defendant wrote via email to the Claimants representative on the xxth xxxxxxx 2016 with a Part 18 request to identify the heads of action on which the claim is based and a number of other questions but the representative simply made a broad statement repeating the original claim text rather than providing specific answers. The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action.

9. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

10. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste’ is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

11. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name. This was requested but not supplied in the part 18 request and reply.

12. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered on the signage to drivers who enter with no intention to park, simply to load and/or unload. Therefore no contract has been formed with the driver and any assumption by the claimant of alleged 'unauthorised' parking can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

13. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

14. This case can be easily distinguished from the Beavis case which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and the claimant has not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

15. The Claimant did not comply with the CoP regarding 'grace periods' as their contract notice clearly states that they only allow 10 minutes for entry but have no indication of subsequent grace periods to exit the car park. I strongly believe that the vehicle has not exceeded Excel’s published grace period of 10 minutes plus a CoP mandated exit period which I would reasonably presume to also be 10 minutes.

16. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

17. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

18. I ask that the claimant shows the advertising consent for the signs and the renewal, not just a signed statement to the court as not having these is a criminal offence.

19. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

Coupon-mad

Not bad at all, you are covering all the bases but I do agree you need to prune the 'strike out' requests and maybe just have that right at the end before your statement of truth:

I request the court strike out the claim for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16, due to their template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.*

Also can you mention Laura Jopson's appeal decision where she won and was granted £2000 in costs in a ruling in June 2016 by Judge Charles Harris QC at Oxford County Court. He found that private parking firm Home Guard Services (T/A '14 Services') had acted unreasonably:

http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/milton-keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-for-flat-tenants-in-parking-dispute-1-7459066

The circuit Judge found that at that location, Laura Jopson (as well as people making deliveries/loading/unloading) have a right of way...and that Home Guard Services’ regulations disregarded these rights. So you could briefly mention that case too (we don't have a claim number AFAIK but an Appeal case is persuasive on county courts if there is similarity).






* http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/pcmuk-youve-been-gladstoned.html

Xanthanan

Coupon-Mad, thank you for your speed of response, generous appraisal of my first attempt and those helpful suggestions. I have incorporated them into the next version (below) and removed the surplus strike requests.

My main concerns are now that the order could be better, does it need to flow like a good story with a climax and summary at the end or can it be a little more disjointed? Secondly do I need to add a brief point admitting my error ignoring all communications before the court documents arrived?

Another worry is that I don't really understand what is required for the "statement of truth" and how it fits into the defence. Is it just added to the end or on a separate document? I've seen a number of mentions about it but don't remember any more.

1. I am the Defendant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, DOB XX/XX/19XX, and reside at XX XXXXXX XX, XXXX, XXXXXX and I am the hirer of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

3. The claimant has failed to identify the driver of the vehicle and while the keeper (the hire company) and I (the hirer) have both been approached the driver has in no way been identified. I believe the burden of proof is with the claimant to prove who the ‘parking contract’ was made with unless they rely on POFA Schedule 4 items 13 & 14 to claim against the keeper or hirer. The claimant is widely known to ignore correct use of POFA and often declares that they do not rely on it for their claims. I can produce clear evidence that POFA was not followed in this case.

4. The claimant has also failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

5. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response to the questions asked.

6. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant’s case.

7. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. An example of such a lack of diligence is the failure to include my surname in any documentation, especially the Claim No xxxxxxxx dated 25 Aug 2016. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

8. The first PCN I received from the claimant was sent by post and arrived on xx/xx/20xx, some 70 calendar days after the ‘offence’ date of xx/xx/20xx. The documentation contained none of the supporting evidence required by POFA Schedule 4 items 13 & 14 and clearly exceeds the maximum number of days between some of the POFA regulated ‘events’ which invalidates their claim completely.

9. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The defendant wrote via email to the Claimants representative on the xxth xxxxxx 20xx with a Part 18 request to identify the heads of action on which the claim is based and a number of other questions but the representative simply made a broad statement repeating the original claim text rather than providing specific answers. The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action.

10. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

11. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste’ is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

12. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name. This was requested but not supplied in the part 18 request and reply.

13. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered on the signage to drivers who enter with no intention to park, simply to load and/or unload. Therefore no contract has been formed with the driver and any assumption by the claimant of alleged 'unauthorised' parking can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

14. Furthermore I believe that the recent appeal decision in June 2016 by Judge Charles Harris QC at Oxford County Court in the case of Home Guard Services (T/A '14 Services') and Laura Jopson further reinforces that loading and unloading activities have a right of way to tenants properties adjacent to the car park. The circuit Judge found that at that location, Laura Jopson (as well as people making deliveries/loading/unloading) have a right of way...and that Home Guard Services’ regulations disregarded these rights.

15. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

16. This case can be easily distinguished from the Beavis case which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and the claimant has not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

17. The Claimant did not comply with the CoP regarding 'grace periods' as their contract notice clearly states that they only allow 10 minutes for entry but have no indication of subsequent grace periods to exit the car park. I strongly believe that the vehicle has not exceeded Excel’s published grace period of 10 minutes plus a CoP mandated exit period which I would reasonably presume to also be 10 minutes.

18. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

19. I ask that the claimant shows the advertising consent for the signs and the renewal, not just a signed statement to the court as not having these is a criminal offence.

20. I request the court strike out the claim for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16, due to their template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

21. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

Coupon-mad

The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

That's your statement of truth and should be right at the end.