BW Legal Letter of Claim

nosferatu1001

IT is simply not a good idea to make this anymore complicated than it needs to be. Do you KNOW you will not now just lose on a technicality? No? Then how about just doing AS TOLD and getting the *defendant* to acknowledge *their* claim?

Have you messaged BW about the failure to maintain and the service to the old address? YUou need to issue it as a complaint to their complaints partner.

jtotheb

OK - message received. I'll set up another account for my wife.

jtotheb

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

No, you cannot change who the defendant is.

You include your new address in the defence
You then tell BW Legal AGAIN that they have served to an old adderss, and you DEMAND to know why
1) They have not maintained their data records, an offence under the DPA2018
2) THey have failed to use the last known address for service when filign the claim, whcih I believe is perjury as the claim form requires they confirm this when filing the claim.

So I'm writing back to BW Legal again to inform them that they have served the claim against the wrong address despite me having told them on two separate occasions that my address had changed. Clearly, they have not maintained their records (an offence under DPA 2018) but can I just qualify the accuracy of the second point in the quote above? I'll go back hard with them that they have committed perjury by using my old address if that its true but wanted to qualify it before I responded as I will obviously use this in my defence as well.

TIA

Coupon-mad

I'll go back hard with them that they have committed perjury by using my old address if that its true

It's not perjury. Not sure why you are engaging with them? Defence is your priority.

You are meant to be showing us your draft defence that has to be emailed to the court.

KeithP

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

jtotheb

Dear All. I'm sorry to have left this so late. I've got to get my defence in by Saturday and I'm also concerned that given the circumstances (and earlier comments in my thread about this being one that 'may be lost') I'm unable to put together a credible defence. I have completed the following and would really appreciate help in fine tuning it. Sorry once again for leaving it so late:

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number:

---

Between:

NATIONAL CAR PARKS LIMITED V ..............................................

The Defendant who is the registered keeper of vehicle xxx, denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.


I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the xxx by National Car Parks Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature. The claim states that it has been issued by BWLegal as the Claimant's Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) and as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

3. There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim under the Practice Direction.

4. ANPR evidence shows only entry and exit of car park. It does not take into account xxx (not sure what to put here as I actually did just overstay by 30 mins!)

5. The terms and conditions which are displayed at the car park and on their online site state "Pay & Display” – you must purchase a parking ticket from the ticket machines at the Car Park either with cash or a credit/debit card, before leaving your vehicle and ensure that the parking ticket is clearly displayed in the windscreen of your vehicle as the vehicle was not parked and was not left at any time no visible terms and conditions / contract was broken There can be no contract if the contract is hidden.

6. The Claimant's ANPR systems only record the times of entry to, and exit from, the car park, and do not provide any evidence that the vehicle was ever actually parked (which is denied). Claims involving similar facts have routinely been dismissed by District Judges sitting in various County Courts.

7. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £xx plus 'initial legal costs' of £xx, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant and constitute an attempt to achieve double recovery.

8. The added 'legal' costs are in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules. The Claimant's solicitors, BW Legal, recently admitted in court that their company handles millions of what are effectively cut and paste robo-claims, at any one time. The Defendant reasonably concludes that no supervising solicitor is likely to have provided legal advice for a fee or in any way supervised this claim.

9. In ParkingEye v Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the sum was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to already include a significant sum in profit; being a sum set in advance which was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime. Damages could not be added; it was held that a claim from a parking firm agent could not have been pleaded as damages, and would have failed because ParkingEye suffered no loss.

10. It was also held by the Judges in Beavis, at Court of Appeal stage, that a case regarding an ordinary transactional contractual fee (such as in a pay and display car park with a quantifiable tariff) was 'entirely different' from the complex situation in that case.

11. In all other 'parking charge' cases which turn on different signs and different facts, the penalty rule was held by the Supreme Court Judges to remain engaged, and that such charges cannot be enforced merely as punishment. The £85 charge in Beavis was saved from being struck out as an unenforceable penalty due to a specific legitimate interest in a quick turnover of spaces in a free car park where no tariff owing could be quantified.

12. None of this applies in this case where no parking took place, and no contract was agreed. [I presume I can’t use this as I did actually park and paid via RingGo therefore accepting the contract?]

13. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

14. In the alternative, given that the issue will turn on the fact that the Defendant made reasonable endeavours to comply but any alleged contract was frustrated due to a machine failure under the full control of the Claimant, the Defendant requests a preliminary hearing to examine the same, to save burdening the court with a claim that has no merit.

15. NCP are not 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 rights to bring action regarding this claim.
15.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
15.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
15.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge


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

KeithP

Over two weeks ago I asked:

KeithP wrote: »

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

Really strange that your opening post back in July said:

I've just received a letter of claim from BWLegal ...

...yet point 3 in your Defence says:

3. There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim under the Practice Direction.

jtotheb

I’ve followed the steps for acknowledgement of service and the 4 weeks expires on Saturday.

I presume point 3 in my defence (which has been shamelessly copied from elsewhere) refers to the pre action protocol in point 2.

KeithP

jtotheb wrote: »

I’ve followed the steps for acknowledgement of service and the 4 weeks expires on Saturday.

Do you realise the 'four weeks' starts from the Date of Service?

Also a Defence is never due to be filed on a Saturday.

But I'll leave it there now.

Coupon-mad

Remove #2 and #3 and #6 and #12 which make no sense for your case, surely.

Remove this too, it's just waffle and repetition:

15.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
15.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
15.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

Please search the forum for bargepole defence and read one he wrote last month that shows how to write a short and concise defence dealing with the facts. Copy that style instead.

I can't see any facts about your defence at all, nothing about why you are not liable and why the PDT machine purchase time is the moment that the contract starts, not the time you drove in.

I saw nothing about grace periods?

Nothing about the fact that a reasonable driver would conclude that 'parking time' is just that, and not the time taken to drive round & round and find a space (if busy), then park, lock the car, walk to the machine, queue up (if busy) and then find the right change or take ten minutes to get an app to work, to pay.

Then ALSO at the end, the time taken on return to the car, to undertake non parking activity e.g. loading bags & maybe passengers into the car, then reversing out of the space & driving round and to the exit, then maybe halting briefly - not in a bay - to set a Sat Nav, or just queuing again (if busy in the Summer, and/or if the exit leads to a busy road with stationary traffic at red lights, etc?!).

Without telling us who was driving, what were the actual circumstances for THE DRIVER?