Letter of claim from bwlegal

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th September, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd October 2018 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to hone the Defence to perfection.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

phoenixfreespirit

So I have tried contacting the local council to try and find the landowner of the site and though they were very understanding and wanted to be able to help, they said there was no way even with the freedom of information act for me to be able to find out who the owner of the carpark is due to data protection! :mad:
Here is a photo of the carpark in question which as can be clearly seen is the disabled access for the library. (The single disabled parking spot is hidden by the building on the left hand side)
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/uzsjszpb3hrap9z/WhatsApp%20Image%202018-08-12%20at%2018.32.07.jpeg?dl=0
Apparently I can't even find out if the 4 parking spots (1 disabled 3 staff) allocated to the library, are owned by the same people?
I have also contacted the Library who were unable to offer any help.
Here is the single disabled parking spot, which I understand was already taken at the time of the incident.
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/ezmfk8tuwxp05ez/WhatsApp%20Image%202018-08-12%20at%2018.32.04.jpeg?dl=0
Here is the allocated staff parking which I understand at the time was also taken
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/88efvh5ghaqr52j/WhatsApp%20Image%202018-08-12%20at%2018.32.05.jpeg?dl=0
Due to my mother's condition and the time constraints of when my car was available to take her to the Library, it would not have been possible for the driver to return at a later date with the hope of the disabled spot being empty. :mad:

Umkomaas

Here is a photo of the carpark in question which as can be clearly seen is the disabled access for the library. (The single disabled parking spot is hidden by the building on the left hand side)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzsjszpb3hrap9z/WhatsApp%20Image%202018-08-12%20at%2018.32.07.jpeg?dl=0

Here is the single disabled parking spot, which I understand was already taken at the time of the incident.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ezmfk8tuwxp05ez/WhatsApp%20Image%202018-08-12%20at%2018.32.04.jpeg?dl=0

Here is the allocated staff parking which I understand at the time was also taken

https://www.dropbox.com/s/88efvh5ghaqr52j/WhatsApp%20Image%202018-08-12%20at%2018.32.05.jpeg?dl=0

You have enough posts under your belt to post your own live links - no need for any more hxxps.

But you do need to check your Dropbox account as that seems to be under a real name. Please change it (if that's possible) to a pseudonym.

phoenixfreespirit

Oops Dropbox name changed and thanks re live links I didn't know I could do that and certainly wouldn't want to cause anyone on here extra work as you guys do so much already! I am still having trouble seeing the wood for the trees despite having spent most of the day trying to find out how to draft a decent defense against these scumbags :embarasse !

Umkomaas

Thanks - I've edited my post so there's nothing to link to the real you!

Coupon-mad

So I have tried contacting the local council to try and find the landowner of the site and though they were very understanding and wanted to be able to help, they said there was no way even with the freedom of information act for me to be able to find out who the owner of the carpark is due to data protection!

You need to ask the Council who pays the non-domestic rates for that land.

It's public information that a Council has to tell you. Don't ask 'who is the landowner'.

phoenixfreespirit

Hi Coupon~mad and those in the know
Thanks so much for all your help! I have tried the council again using the postcode which come up for the land in question (according to google maps ~ which is the only way I could find anything) but they say there are no non domestic rates paid, only council tax as it is the same postcode as the block of flats, the flats are sold as leasehold and they thought that parking must be included in the price? There is nothing separately listed for the land behind the flats? Sorry if I am not being very successful with this. Does that mean that they don't actually have a contract with anyone?

There is no where to actually get a permit/ticket.

I have not actually seen the original pcn dated 22/10/14 as I understand the driver disposed of it, the last letter which you so kindly drafted that I sent them asked for a copy, I will wait and see if they reply.
They have not sent me a copy although they have sent me copies of photos and of letters from PPS (ParkingPirateScammers/Scumbags! ) dated 28/10 ~ £100, 29/12 ~ 130 and 12/01 ~ £130.

Below is my 1st very rough partial (unnumbered/ordered defence draft and have so far covered ~ no proof of contract, no valid signature on form, inflated charge, serial litigator and unreasonable behaviour.

1 It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of vehicle registration mark xxx which is the subject of these proceedings.

2 The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

The Defendant believes that the claim has been artificially inflated and that the claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original charge, including £60 for Legal Representatives costs which is not permitted for the small claims track under CPR 27.14. In any case the Defendant disputes the Claimant has incurred £60 Legal Representatives Costs pursuing an alleged £100 debt.

As is required by Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A) the Claimant has not provided proof of the Claimants contractual authority to operate in the car park in question 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 BW Legal!and that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights enjoyed by the lessee company and extended to permitted drivers who were expressly allowed on site. No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the Creditor within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowners behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

The Form issued by BW Legal on the 17th September has not been correctly filed as it was not signed by a legal entity. It does not have a valid signature. 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. Its literally just computer printed BW Legal Services Limited (Claimants Legal Representative). There's no signature.

The Claimant is believed to be a serial litigant, with over 1,000 similar claims identified by HM Courts Service, which is clearly against the public interest. It is the Defendants belief that this claim is yet another of the Claimants template claims and will proceed with no specific evidence or facts with which to substantiate it which demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.

It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and the court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

That's it so far ~ I still have to address

The way the amount is set out on the claim form also seems to differ from their notice of county court claim issued (although the total is the same) as they are claiming £188.48 made up of ~ £100 + £28.48 interest + £60 'contractual cost pursuant to pcn T & C' then £25 court fees and £50 legal representative's costs.

Also I am unsure about legal terms/ information regarding my mothers statutory disabilty rights and how to use the Blamires examples you have helpfully given already in the correct legal format for court.

Should I put the explanation of my mother's disability/circumstances and the fact that my car was only available for use at that time in 'mitigating circumstances' which I presume would come after any legal points?

Thanks again so much to all you lovely people for all your help and knowledge, I would truly be up a creek without a paddle otherwise!

beamerguy

The way the amount is set out on the claim form also seems to differ from their notice of county court claim issued (although the total is the same) as they are claiming £188.48 made up of ~ £100 + £28.48 interest + £60 'contractual cost pursuant to pcn T & C' then £25 court fees and £50 legal representative's costs.


Something seriously wrong with BWLegal, one minute it's
an admin charge, then a contractual cost ?????
All that £60 is for, is a failed debt collector which they simply
cannot charge.

Even if there was a notice in their T&C's, which is doubtful,
it will probably be in small writing which nobody can read
anyway, "can't read it, nothing to form a contract"

Cannot be T&C's on a PCN because that was after the event

In a nutshell ..... you are being scammed

phoenixfreespirit

Oh and though they are pursuing me as a keeper, as previously mentioned, their last template letter addressed me as the driver. does that also go in legal numbered points?

Umkomaas

Any chance you could put some paragraphs into post #48 please? We have to read so much each day that headaches can easily come thick and fast. Please make it easy for those you are asking to help you.

Same applies to any future posts.