Letter of Claim - BW Legal/NCP

Manc88

On the claim form it is just - "National Car Parks Limited"

Assume they need to match exactly?

Manc88

Hi all, will be submitting my final defence today, but received another letter from BW yesterday claiming they will be entering a CCJ against me if I don't respond before 11th Aug.

From what I've read, they can't do that until the court hearing is concluded (?), is it worth making any reference to this misleading bullyboy tactic in the defence?

Is it also worth adding anything about their false statement of truth regarding their additional £60 fee?

beamerguy

Manc88 wrote: »

Hi all, will be submitting my final defence today, but received another letter from BW yesterday claiming they will be entering a CCJ against me if I don't respond before 11th Aug.

From what I've read, they can't do that until the court hearing is concluded (?), is it worth making any reference to this misleading bullyboy tactic in the defence?

Is the letter about the same case ???

If it really does say "they will be entering a CCJ" ... BWLegal are talking the utmost cr*p. They can do nothing until a judge decides.

YES, I would let the judge know about this and I would also issue a complaint to SRA about these lies
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page

STATEMENT OF TRUTH ....... I think that your main aim is get the judge to get the claim kicked out for ABUSE OF PROCESS. Once that happens the query should be made about statement of truth.

Every court should be made aware about BWLegal

Manc88

Yes, same case. I thought as much.

They've stated "If you do not contact us or respond to the County Court Claim, we will enter a County Court Judgement ("CCJ") against you after 11 August 2019." Followed by a whole load of scare tactics about how this may affect my ability to get credit in future etc etc...

Will add this into the defence and make the complaint.

beamerguy

Manc88 wrote: »

Yes, same case. I thought as much.

They've stated "If you do not contact us or respond to the County Court Claim, we will enter a County Court Judgement ("CCJ") against you after 11 August 2019." Followed by a whole load of scare tactics about how this may affect my ability to get credit in future etc etc...

Will add this into the defence and make the complaint.

Uncouth little devils, are they not.

Continue as instructed by our great members on here regarding submitting your defence

Manc88

Thanks again beamerguy, I've drafted my final defence below. Have added a line about this letter (end of para 20) - does that read ok? If all looks good, I'll get it printed, signed and dated and email off this afternoon.

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXX (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 a proper 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.

11. The Claimant’s 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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, and continues to be wholly unreasonable and vexatious, up to and including their letter issued 29th July threatening that a CCJ will be entered against the Defendant after 11th August, despite the matter not yet having gone to Court.

21. 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

#12

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Best to say ....... the courts said IT IS ORDERED THAT

Don't want your judge thinking you are ordering him

So, BWLegal will now know what they are up against as they are probably avid readers of this forum

Manc88

Ok, amended and printed. On the SRA page is it worth a follow up complaint to the Legal Ombudsman too? I've decided that regardless of the court outcome, I'm going to make life as difficult for BW as I possibly can!

beamerguy

Manc88 wrote: »

Ok, amended and printed. On the SRA page is it worth a follow up complaint to the Legal Ombudsman too? I've decided that regardless of the court outcome, I'm going to make life as difficult for BW as I possibly can!

That depends what the SRA say

You also have a new opportunity ....

As we all know, Boris is in town, he has said that the voter is the boss. He has appointed Robert Buckland QC MP as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

Such abuse of motorists and the courts must be reported to him to investigate.

Why now ?, because Boris wants to remain as PM and the government can no longer turn a blind eye to such abuse against the general public

TWITTER
https://twitter.com/robertbuckland?lang=en

https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/robert-buckland/4106

KeithP

Manc88 wrote: »

They've stated "If you do not contact us or respond to the County Court Claim, we will enter a County Court Judgement ("CCJ") against you after 11 August 2019." Followed by a whole load of scare tactics about how this may affect my ability to get credit in future etc etc...

I can see nothing wrong with that.

If you haven't filed your Defence by 5th August they are fully entitled to ask for a Default County Court Judgment against you at anytime after that date.

Some might say they are being a bit generous in giving you a few days grace - until 11th August.

Others might think that they are giving you the idea that you have until 11th August to file your Defence, but will seek a Default CCJ after 5th August.

Get your Defence filed this weekend as described in post #47 above.