Letter of Claim - BW Legal/NCP

Manc88

Hi beamerguy, I've only got the pictures of the signs which BWlegal sent through at the moment, but can easily head to the carpark and take some more. Unfortunately I'm at work at the moment so don't have the pics with me.

beamerguy

Manc88 wrote: »

Hi beamerguy, I've only got the pictures of the signs which BWlegal sent through at the moment, but can easily head to the carpark and take some more. Unfortunately I'm at work at the moment so don't have the pics with me.

Please do and then post them here. You have enough posts to be able to show the link, so upload to a free site

Manc88

Hi beamerguy,

These are the Ts&Cs on the sign - no mention of any additional fees above and beyond the £60/£100 PCN.

beamerguy

Certainly no mention of the fake £60. But, they claim T&C's .... WHERE ARE THEY.

So BWLegal are making a false claim for a fake £60

A judge may well wonder why BWL are making a statement of truth when it's not

Manc88

Fingers crossed! With regards to the fact that the PCN went to an old address, and that I moved house between the event and the sending of the PCN is it worth including that in the defence or witness statement, or is there no point?

beamerguy

Manc88 wrote: »

Fingers crossed! With regards to the fact that the PCN went to an old address, and that I moved house between the event and the sending of the PCN is it worth including that in the defence or witness statement, or is there no point?

Not really, stick to the main points which includes Abuse of Process

Manc88

Ok, will do. Would you say the below draft is sufficient, or would you change anything?

The only thing I can see that may need altering are the figures in paragraph 10 and 10b, as of the £259.68, c. £100 of this is vaguely explained on the letter of claim as interest, court fee and Legal representatives costs, so should I change this to challenge only the additional £60? (sorry to keep pushing, but I go on holiday 18th to 28th and really wanted to have this nailed before I go, even though submission deadline is 05th Aug)

Also, should I make more of a point out of the false 'statement of truth' in light of what you mention above?

Defence First Draft:

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

National Carparks Ltd (NCP) (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.

4. The sparseness of the particulars also make it 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, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.


Cost of the claim – disproportionate and disingenuous

8. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

a. only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

b. resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

9. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

10. The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £259.68. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.

a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.

b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £259.68. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

c. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, with the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, being £100.

d. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

11. The Claimant representatives have included a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

12. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. The Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

16. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

17. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

18. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

19. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

20. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

beamerguy

Looks OK but let others look before you submit

d. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

I would take that out. The Beavis case ruled that £85 was fair. Even though yours is £100, as with everyone else.
This would open the door for a Rookie legal they send to court to refer to Beavis.

What the Beavis case did not state is that any addition could be added. That's the abuse of process
Any reference to the Beavis case is not applicable to you and is just pie in the sky stuff

Manc88

Thanks for the above beamerguy, I'll remove that line. As I'm now clear of holidays and work trips, I'll get my defence submitted in the next couple of days. If anybody else has any advice on ways I can improve the above draft, please let me know

1505grandad

Observation - is the claimant's name on the defence heading the same as it is stated on the claim form.