Premier Park

Redx

Although you can gather evidence it won't be required for months, at the WS plus Exhibits plus costs schedule stage

Concentrate on your draft defence, that is your main priority and KeithP gave you your defence deadline

Fruitcake

It would also be of use to know what happened when you made the complaints as per C-m's advice.

If you didn't get replies, complain again reminding them of this.

Did your MP reply? Do you have a new one, if so make a new complaint. If it's the same one then tell them you are now being taken to court for supporting a local business.
Complain to the MP where the car was is located if different to your own MP.

The more you tell us about what happened last year the more help you will get now.

mrnomoneybags

Hi All, I'm going to start going through this over the next couple of days.

I got no reply when I complained.

BPA and MP's didnt offer any help said to raise it with the parking company, I did I sent two letters (both recorded delivery) and I got no reply.

nosferatu1001

Get yoiur defence going today
The more you put it off, the less time you have to fine tune and understand.

As pointed out, ONLY your defence - a simple written document, no pictures etc - is your goal now.

Coupon-mad

Nothing is to be sent by recorded delivery and we never tell people to do that.

Show us your draft defence for further help.

mrnomoneybags

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Nothing is to be sent by recorded delivery and we never tell people to do that.

Show us your draft defence for further help.

I sent the letters recorded before I really understood the parking process, knowing what I know now I would have gone to POPLA and had this quashed.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing eh

mrnomoneybags

I've had another letter from BW Legal today with the same CCJ scare tactics .......... scumbags.

This is what I have for my defence, Any feedback would be welcome.




IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No:
BETWEEN:
Premier Park Limited (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE

I am xxx, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle xxx. I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when using the car wash at the St Georges Centre, Gravesend 14/02/2018.

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant on 14/02/2018, was availing themselves of the car wash, for which parking (although they didn't park, but queued) is free, and that you were entitled to assume that this forms part the car wash services offered by the car wash.

3. The Claimant has spent almost 2 years harassing the Defendant with ever increasing and intimidating demands pursuing this baseless charge, sending debt collector letters and causing the Defendant and their family significant distress, despite having no basis to charge £100 and despite knowing that the car park was never used.

4. Due to the sparseness of the POC it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I the defendant supplied them with this evidence, however they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation.

6. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

6.1. These have been variously described as a 'BW Legal instructions fee' (in the pre-action exchange of letters) and/or a 'debt collection charge' (not part of any terms on signage and cannot be added, not least because it was never expended). Suddenly in the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £248.44. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

6.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

7. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

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

Signature

Date

beamerguy

I wonder what powerbrain at BWLegal thinks that queued for a car wash is an offence ????
The judge should be duly warned that he/she might well get a ticket
if they queued for a car wash

SO DAFT

Such a fake claim should be fully supported with coupon-mad's defence in post # 14 of the abuse of process thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

I also wonder what powerbrain thinks you will get a CCJ when it's not even been to court. This is just bully boy tactics and should be reported to the SRA

mrnomoneybags

beamerguy wrote: »

I wonder what powerbrain at BWLegal thinks that queued for a car wash is an offence ????
The judge should be duly warned that he/she might well get a ticket
if they queued for a car wash

SO DAFT

Such a fake claim should be fully supported with coupon-mad's defence in post # 14 of the abuse of process thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

I also wonder what powerbrain thinks you will get a CCJ when it's not even been to court. This is just bully boy tactics and should be reported to the SRA

Its crazy, to think that they waste so much time, I mean every kind person who responds to this thread it takes time........ its a joke that they're allowed to continue to send you letters. I've two since I had the court letters.

You think I should add this?

"14. If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14."

Le_Kirk

Is it a defence or a witness statement? It starts off as a defence but you have signed off with a statement of truth for a witness statement. If it is a defence then: -

5. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I supplied them with this evidence, however they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation.

should be: -

5. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, [strike]I[/strike] the defendant supplied them with this evidence, however they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation.