Letter of claim from bwlegal

KeithP

Palec wrote: »

Hello, issue date 14/09/2018

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th September, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 17th October 2018 to file your Defence.

That's three 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.

Palec

Thank you, I will have few questions to clarify as am checking others as per advice from coupon-mad.
I got invoice when PPS was part of BPA...= that An inadequate grace period has been given as required by the BPA Code of Practice which states a grace period of greater than 10 minutes must be offered (10 minutes to exit the car park and an unspecified period to study, accept the terms and make payment). The Claimant is operating in breach of Code of Practice...Well in 2014 I am not sure if this grace periods been the case.
Then they moved into IPC which says about grace periods, too...
But because I got ticket in 2014, can they claim the law applies in this case, which was valid in 2014? If so, maybe there was not grace period specification, but nowadays is as I BOUGHT SECOND TICKET 10 MINUTES AFTER FIRST ONE, SO AM WITHIN 10 MINUTES.

Coupon-mad

Well in 2014 I am not sure if this grace periods been the case.

This is simple, just Google the BPA AOS Code of Practice and you will find all of the versions, going back years, are hosted by the BPA. Read the right one.

The CoP is not a 'law'.

Palec

Thank you, because of issue date being in January 2014, Version 3 applies in my case...
19.3 If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not
paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time
paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be
liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown
clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain
your terms and conditions.= may be
19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more
than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must
be able to justify the amount in advance. = 10 minutes difference between purchase of first ticket and extension, one hour was £1, so less than £1.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended
amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could
lead to an investigation by The Office of Fair Trading= I feel charge was unreasonable
19.8 If you are asked, you must be able to justify the level of
parking charges to the AOS Board, a member of our
compliance team or to their specified agent.

19.9 You should warn drivers that if they delay payment
beyond a payment period of 28 days, and you need
to take court action or use debt-recovery methods to
recover a debt, there may be extra ‘recovery’ charges for
debt-recovery action. However, you do not need to say
how much these recovery charges are in advance, on
your signs or notices= this is against me I believe

13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a
driver who enters your car park but decides not to park,
to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’
in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the
driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period
at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave
the private car park after the parking contract has ended,
before you take enforcement action.

So it does not say 10 minutes, just reasonable, so I feel 10 minutes is reasonable amount of time between buying and extending ticket, which I can proof. I cannot proof that I offered £10 when they wanted £60, they refused and wanted £100, returned cheque, but I lost this proof unfortunately.

So I failed Popla at a time because I claimed excessive charges, now from this BPA I will claim charges been unreasonable, breach of CoP, I will mention mitigating factors as for my past illness and taking breaks when feeling unfit to drive.
These 2 are most relevant as I was driver and registered keeper.
Maybe less is sometimes more...

Palec

I feel confident because of 10 minutes of ''being late'' and was reading about people implementing their charges and loss...I have not chosen counterclaim just full defence, am not admitting anything to pay. Does it mean that I cannot claim my costs? Well I mean time spent, bullying from debt collectors few years ago, bombarding phonecalls and leaving voicemessages from BW legal, causing distress and inconvenience, which makes my diagnosis from 2009 depression worse, as it was stable before I started to be attacked by this company and their legal representatives... Well not sure how to put it into my defence really, because my diagnosis says depression, seen psychologist who mentioned anxiety, but on paper I had depression, which if course I am not particularly proud of and was reading that mitigating factors are considered by court only, what was the reason I have not included this in my Popla appeal at a time, only excessive charges.
Thank you for your advice as for if to and how to formulate it...

Palec

I assume that font style and size do not matter in Word when writing the defence letter before saving it to pdf.?

System

@C-M

I am not sure whether the "right" Code is going to help. The law didn't change just because someone came up with the wheeze to make it 10 mins and not 11. The law has always been the same which is time at the beginning to form the contract. Time at the end to remove "de minimis" from the court system.

Better to explain it in relation to the law. The "code" is useless until it has some statutory backing such as the one envisaged by Greg Knight.

Palec

Draft defence 1

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 Claim Form issued on the 14 Sep 2018 by BW Legal Services Ltd 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 and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by BW Legal Services Ltd as the Claimants 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.


a.This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of draft particulars. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

b.The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information.
c.The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success.
3. Unjustified inflation to the claim value
The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representative’s costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that BW Legal Services Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. Tthe Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.Legal costs are not recoverable via minor claims court.
4. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim as far as the Defendant is able to tell from the limited information provided by the Claimant.
BPA AOS Code of practice Version 3 valid at a time of allegation specifies in 13.4 that : You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave
the private car park after the parking contract has ended,
before you take enforcement action.
There was no nothing about grace period on the signage and 10 minutes is within reasonable time limits for any car parks at a time of alleged offence and also nowadays.
I purchased another ticket for £1 10 minutes after first one and have proof of it.

5. In 2009 I was diagnosed with depression and seen psychologist who mentioned is connected with anxiety and was recommended by DVLA to drive with caution, which I always do. That was the reason I extended my ticket for another hour after purchase of first ticket just 10 minutes later.
6. I feel bullied by letters I received in 2015 from DRP Debt recovery Plus Ltd and in my reply stated that I will pay only if court decides me to do so, because PPS refused my offer of £10 for the time between purchase of first and second ticket and wanted £100. Despite this and break after letter from 2015 I started to receive letters from DRP in 2017 wanting to settle for £136 and recently from BW legal.
7. Summary
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 14 Sep 2018

(b) Has not taken into consideration grace periods as per CoP

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
Signed xxx
Dated xxx

Palec

As for change of owners, I have not found much info, just this:
The installation of 3No. antennas located on the rooftop, and associated development
Concord House South Street Exeter Devon EX1 1EG

Ref. No: 17/1886/PNT | Validated: Wed 13 Dec 2017 | Status: Unknown

Variation of condition 3 to allow opening until 12am Friday and Saturday, and condition 4 to allow the external seating to be used until 10pm Monday to Sunday
Concord House South Street Exeter Devon EX1 1EG

Ref. No: 16/0788/VOC | Validated: Tue 28 Jun 2016 | Status: Unknown

Addition of retractable dutch blinds to the front windows of the shop with logo
Concord House South Street Exeter Devon EX1 1EG

Ref. No: 16/0663/FUL | Validated: Wed 08 Jun 2016 | Status: Decided

Change of use from A1(retail) to A3 (restaurant/cafe) with outside seating and new bi fold door
Concord House South Street Exeter Devon EX1 1EG

Ref. No: 15/0537/FUL | Validated: Thu 14 May 2015 | Status: Decided

Grimble

District Judge Grand at Southampton struck out case E4GF6T09 due to defence and stated inflated claim not allowed under Beavis v Parkingeye.