Just received Letter of Claim

Coupon-mad

Have you got pics in the dark? Get lots of them later in the Autumn, in the dark (no flash) in readiness for your WS and evidence.

trotbot

I certainly intend to. Not only that but the entrance itself, which is on the NE corner of a dual lane cross roads. The signage is terrible anyway, but factor in having to cross traffic coming at you from 3 different directions and paying attention to exiting cars, a giant Vegas style neon may well be missed .

nosferatu1001

They claim the signage is adequate, because they HAVE to do so. They have NO knowledge of the actual details - they dont get that until after they issue a claim. yes, this is !!! backwards. Sadly noone has sanctioned tem yet.

trotbot

How do,

Quick update.

We received a response from BW Legal which they should feel ashamed of.
Besides spelling mistakes, smh, they refer twice to the fact that their clients claim is based on failing to display a PDT (Pay & Display Ticket).... It is not a Pay and Display car park .
They did confirm that they were pursuing as the registered keeper and intend to "reply" on Schedule 4.....2012.
With this in mind we are considering a response that will reveal the identity of the driver, just so the correspondence from this point forward is correct and any summons is directed to the person we want it to.
Any reason not to do so????

They also gave more time to contact them to discuss payment, which reads like a step back from the 'Letter before claim' received previously.
The majority of their response is incredibly thin and lacks professionalism. Shocking stuff really and all the better for our defence I'm sure.

Coupon-mad

With this in mind we are considering a response that will reveal the identity of the driver, just so the correspondence from this point forward is correct and any summons is directed to the person we want it to.
Any reason not to do so????

That's a HUGE step and a last resort, not recommended unless the person getting these letters will be utterly incapable of being the Defendant (you - or any confident speaker, family or friend - could be the Lay Rep to speak at any hearing with them sitting next to you).

At the moment, the Defendant being the keeper/hirer, but not the driver, in a case of a lease car where the PPC cannot rely on the POFA because they WILL NOT have complied with para 13/14 of the POFA for the Notice to Hirer, is in as much of 100% winning position as any Defendant could be (allowing for a bit of Judge 'lottery' - the odd idiotic decision).

A Judge could not even decide that the D was driving, if the fact they were NOT, was evidenced during the defence and WS stage that they were not. So the PPC would be reduced to using the POFA and they can't because no PPC gets Notice to Hirers right!

It is SUCH a strong defence position with a D that can't be held liable, I cannot agree with the idea of giving up the name of the driver, no.

Sleep on it, this would be a mistake IMHO and the current non-liable, potentially winning D can do this (with your help).

trotbot

Fair enough Coupon-mad, point taken and gratefully received .

trotbot

Hello again,

Further update.
We have received a Claim Form from Northampton County Court and a separate letter from BWLegal stating: "We may enter a County Court Judgement against you on or after 23 October 2018 if you do not contact us or reply to the Count Court Claim".

Obviously standard stuff and we will be responding using the online service via moneyclaim.gov.uk. We assume this is exactly the same as using the enclosed "Defence and Counterclaim - N9B" form.

Details we intend to include in the Defence: (Please feel free to comment)

BWLegal's letter dated 11 September 2018 states: "Their client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle and that they intend to rely (Spelt "reply" ) on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012." - The claimant has clearly not complied with paragraphs 13 and 14 in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and thus cannot pursue this claim against us as the keeper of the vehicle.

We will present video and photographic evidence that the signage is inadequate in day light and invisible at night time (The alleged offence was at night)

BWLegal's letter dated 11 September 2018 states: "Their client's cause of action is that you breached the terms and conditions of the contract which you entered into by parking your vehicle in the car park, by failing to display a valid Pay & Display Ticket (PDT)." - The car park in question is not and has never been a Pay & Display car park.

At the time of the alleged offence only one of the retail outlets served by the car park was open for business. Carphone Warehouse and Pets at Home were closed. KFC was open, but was not operating in its usual capacity due to supply chain issues (No chicken ). As a result the car park was vastly unoccupied throughout the alleged offence. Therefore there was no possible loss of revenue for the businesses served by this car park.

Three other work colleagues used the same car park for the same period, none of which noticed the claimed signage and all of which have received a PCN from the claimant. (None have paid)

There are two Pay & Display car parks in close proximity to this car park that are free after 18:00 everyday. Why would we risk committing an offence when there are other options available.

We have lived within a mile of this car park for 12 years and have never noticed any signage stating restrictions.

Questions:
1 - After reading paragraphs 13 and 14 it is quite clear they are in breach of several sub-paragraphs. Should I list particulars in the defence?
2 - Is it worth us copying the form and sending it to BWLegal?
3 - Is it worth completing the AOS for the extra 14 days?

As always any advice will be much appreciated and taken on board. If you feel I need to research further please be as direct as you feel necessary.

KeithP

Do not even think about entering your Defence via MCOL.

The reason for not doing so is clearly explained in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

Can you please post the exact contents of the Particulars of Claim box from your Claim Form?

Yes you should do the AoS - as described in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

trotbot

Hi Keith,

Thank you for the response.
Sorry my bad I have no excuse, I didn't click on either of Bargepoles' links that detail why the MCOL form messes with the formatting. Makes total sense, why create any potential confusion for the judge.

The Issue date is 03 Oct 2018.

WRT AoS, I had downloaded the guidance to MCOL in the Dropbox link, just wasn't sure if it gave any real advantage other than time. I have now completed and submitted it.

Particulars of Claim:

The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of
£203.48 being monies due from the
Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking
contravention which occured on the 21/02/2018 at
21:02:33 in the car park at
Scalford Rd Shopping Precinct Melton Mowbray,
Leic,
In relation to a VW
MOVE UP
registration mark XXXXXXX.
The Defendant was allowed 28 days from
the PCN issue Date to pay, but failed
to do so.
Despite demand having being made,
the Defendant has failed to settle their
outstanding liability.
The claim also includes Statutory Interest
pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts
Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily
rate of 4.48 from 21/02/2018 to being an amount of £4.48.
The Claimant also claims £54.00 contractual
costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions.

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this claim form
are true and I am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this
statement.

Signed BW Legal Services Limited
(Claimant's Legal Representatives)


I have copied the text from the claim form verbatim. Including the terrible formatting and spelling errors.

Coupon-mad

EDIT - 2020
THERE IS NOW A TEMPLATE DEFENCE AT THE TOP OF THE FORUM.

Use the usual defence then add your other stuff:

- the Notice to Hirer sent to the company was not compliant with Schedule 4 of the POFA para 13/14 so the named hirer firm cannot be held liable.

- it is denied that the Defendant is 'driver and/or registered keeper, the D is neither.

- it is denied that the signage can be seen at all, let alone read in the dark.

- The car park in question serves a number of shops, all except KFC were closed and they were out of chicken at this time.

- The car park was 70% empty when the driver arrived and departed so there was no legitimate interest in operating intrusive ANPR surveillance 24/7.

- The car park has been used by various employees for years, never noticing any signage suggesting there are time restrictions, so this must be a new regime not properly signed in accordance with the BPA CoP.

- Three other work colleagues* parked in the same car park that evening completely oblivious to any signage claiming timing restrictions. All of whom have received a PCN, so the Claimant is clearly in difficulty with their alleged contract which was impossible to see in the dark.

Show us your draft after that.




*Later on, get signed/dated witness statements from ALL of them (mentioning the location, time and date of their visit), and put '4' in the box in the DQ N180 form about how many witnesses (the company plus the 3 employees who were not the driver of this vehicle).