Letter of claim from bwlegal

Palec

This one is interesting...
http://nebula.wsimg.com/07b493fc1a4ea8623a8fe73dce20287a?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Difference between contract, and trenspass...

Palec

Case No C7GF6E3R

KeithP

Palec wrote: »

This one is interesting...
http://nebula.wsimg.com/07b493fc1a4ea8623a8fe73dce20287a?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Difference between contract, and trenspass...

Link doesn't work.

Palec

http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

CS047 PACE v Lengyel C7GF6E3R (no contract with landowner/driver. Signage creates trespass)

Coupon-mad

Pace v Lengyel is a great example of a Judge demolishing a Parking charge scam, piece by piece, and is useful as a form of direction for a less clued up Judge!

Palec

Yes, nice one, just not sure if it applies in my case, I parked for one hour, extended for one more with 10 minutes delay...
On signage in my case was '' warning contractual agreement'' to abide by T&C's...

Palec

Thank you for your comments regarding draft defence1, I will provide draft 2 as soon as I know what to add and not to include from draft 1...
Chat soon

Palec

Draft defence 2

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.
I would like to mention also case Pace vs Lengyel as example of unreasonable charges.
I would like to ask judge to take into consideration following mitigating factors:
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.
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.
I feel PPS should be sanctioned because of unethical behaviour towards me using debt collectors instead of proposed court actions...
DVLA Statement

The DVLA has issued a statement to the Trade Associations on the matter of Debt Assignment

You will be aware that DVLA has been considering whether to permit private parking companies passing on DVLA vehicle keeper data to third parties as part of the assignment of unpaid alleged private parking charges. The term used in this context to describe this activity is "debt assignment."

The KADOE contract does not provide for the onward disclosure of vehicle keeper data by parking companies for debt assignment, and any proposals to do so require the parking company to seek written authorisation from DVLA. However, following representations from the sector, DVLA agreed to consider its position further.

I can now advise that the Agency has concluded that it will not be changing its position on this matter. As was the case with previous requests from parking companies, DVLA will not allow vehicle keeper data originating from DVLA records to be provided to third parties as part of a debt assignment arrangement. The Agency will consider disclosure of data obtained from DVLA to third parties as part of a debt assignment arrangement as a breach of contract which could result in suspension.

British Parking Association Statement

The British Parking Association has stated they will fully support the DVLA in this matter, and that this is a serious breach which could result in the award of 10 sanction points.

12 sanction points results in an immediate ban.

The International Parking Community

The IPC have not made any public statement on this matter. However, their code of practice states
5.2 You must not pass any Personal Data to any third party company who is not a member of an Accredited Operator Scheme (or similar scheme of a different name) with an Accredited Trade Association or a firm entitled to carry on reserved legal activities
According to their sanction scheme, misuse of personal data can result in 6-12 sanction points, with a starting point of 10.
Factors indicating higher degree of harm
1. Personal Keeper’s Data compromised or
used or obtained inappropriately.

5. 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

Thank you for comments, somehow I feel it is all ridiculous to be charged for 10 minutes really, but do not know what else to put there and what to delete, added something as for when they tried to obtain £160 via debt collectors, not sure if it is good idea to include, also grace periods I feel should be part of defence, judge is human, so that maybe also how I feel about it, probably also because of my mental health issues from the past, which affect me till nowadays as for being focused , what is the reason I need to calm my mind after work before drive in the car, so that I had reason to buy another ticket for £1, which I have done 10 minutes after first one, also offered settlement of £10, which maybe is not so good, because I admitted I am liable by doing so?
Thank you for your comments.

Coupon-mad

We can't really do this ten times over for all the PPS defendants.

Three more now:

earth_moon626

Cawills2018

elithia


Do bookmark ALL of them - I've been giving all of the 'PPS defence group' all the usernames. I did tell all of you, swap pm's and look at each other's threads and defences, you can all support and help each other so we don't have to reply again and again on all ten or so threads (that are all the same!).

Don't get me wrong, we will comment on defences (and later, WS and evidence) and will answer questions when we can.

also grace periods I feel should be part of defence, judge is human, so that maybe also how I feel about it, probably also because of my mental health issues from the past, which affect me till nowadays as for being focused , what is the reason I need to calm my mind after work before drive in the car, so that I had reason to buy another ticket for £1, which I have done 10 minutes after first one

Yes, grace periods can be argued.

also offered settlement of £10, which maybe is not so good, because I admitted I am liable by doing so?

No it looks reasonable and the Judge might think better of you for it.