Letter of Claim & County Court Help

Le_Kirk

Here is your link made live: -

https://postimg.cc/gallery/1yxodakhk/

Tropicaldream

Thanks Le_Kirk

Bowler01

If you really want to stick it to BW Legal make a complaint as they are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) under number 619068 Its all on their website about how to complain if you want to check


As per FCA rules they must
1. Acknowledge in writing within 5 business days
2. Make a formal written response within 4 weeks.
3. Provide a final written response within 8 weeks


If you're not happy with their response (and you wont be will you) you can then make a complaint to the FCA.


The FCA gives them 25 free cases then they are charged £550 for each and every complaint after that regardless of the outcome of the complaint


They will be out of business in a month if everyone dealing with them makes a complaint
1000 complaints x £550 is £550 K


Below is from the financial ombudsmen website
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/businesses/answers/funding_a5.html


We don't charge a business for the first 25 cases we deal with during the year. For the 26th and each subsequent complaint, we charge a case fee of £550.


THE CONSUMER/COMPLAINANT NEVER PAY
why consumers don't pay

why don't consumers have to pay to bring a complaint to the ombudsman?

All ombudsman schemes in the UK provide their services free to consumers. This is fundamental to the ombudsman concept - providing a free, open and accessible public service available to everyone.
When the Financial Ombudsman Service was set up - and again when its remit was extended to cover consumer-credit disputes - it was agreed in parliament that free consumer access to the ombudsman was essential, to underpin public confidence in financial services.


THE BUSINESS ALWAYS PAY
paying if a consumer loses

why should I pay a case fee if a consumer complains about me to the ombudsman - and loses?

Our rules (set out in the FCA's Handbook) say that if we consider a complaint against a business, the case becomes chargeable whatever the outcome.

• 
  

Tropicaldream

Thanks Bowler I will look into that.

Further update:
I have received yet another letter which is a "notice of county court claim issued" for the claim form. This is very generic but seems abit pointless since it was only few days ago they sent me the letter acknowledging my email and the claim form (and not responding to any points raised) this new letter basically tells me the same but makes it sound like I haven't responded.

I'll keep log of it all for my defence I'm working on.

System

If you really want to stick it to BW Legal make a complaint as they are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) under number 619068 Its all on their website about how to complain if you want to check

Is the work they do for NCP, regulated work that falls within the remit of the FCA? IMHO, not but we'll see.

Bowler01

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Is the work they do for NCP, regulated work that falls within the remit of the FCA? IMHO, not but we'll see.

The point is they pay for ALL complaints even if the complaint is not upheld and how to complain is on their website for all to see


and as an added bonus imagine all the extra work for BW legal having to reply to each complaint and then also dealing with the ombudsman

Tropicaldream

Quentin wrote: »

Yes ignore this latest letter. ,(Assuming you don't want to pay!)

Construct your defence and post it here for comments before sending it

Hi all,

First defence draft below, Im looking at filing my defence early next week so any comments in the meantime would be appreciated.

I feel like I could go stronger on point 2 since they haven't responded but most of the information i requested from BW Legal is covered already in the other points. I also have evidence to support some of the points, such as the photos from the car park (tree covering entrance sign, good example of evidence for point 8) should I include what my evidence is for each point or is the response enough?

Defence

1.It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXX XXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

1.1 The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

2.As the pre actions protocol expects both parties to exchange sufficient information to understand each others position, the Defendant has requested additional information in response to to BW Legals “Letter of Claim” dated XXX which has received no formal response.


3. In breach of Practice Direction 16 7.5 and CPR 16.1 1(a) the Particulars of Claims lack any specific information and do not give any details about what contravention allegedly occurred only that it related to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), what PCN the claim relates to, how the charge arose, how the charge has been constructed or what contract was allegedly entered into. This makes it very difficult for the defendant to accurately defend the claim.


4. The Defendant believes that the claim has been artificially inflated and that the claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original charge, including £xx for Legal Representatives costs which is not permitted for the small claims track under CPR 27.14. In any case the Defendant disputes the the Claimant has incurred £xx Legal Representatives Costs pursuing an alleged £xx debt.


5. The charge is clearly an unenforceable penalty with no basis in costs incurred by the alleged contravention. If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (i.e. the tariff), identified as completely different from the complex 'free parking licence' arrangement in Beavis.

5.1 Where loss can be quantified, the 'complex' and 'completely different' Beavis decision is inapplicable, as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius, A0JD1405 at Wrexham County Court.

5.2 At the Court of Appeal stage in!Beavis, pay-per-hour car parks were specifically held by those Judges (in findings not contradicted in the Supreme Court later) as still being subject to the "penalty" rule, with the potential for the charge to be held to be wholly disproportionate to the tariff, and thus unrecoverable. In other words, charging £100 for a period of time for which the 'agreed and published' tariff rate is £1/hour, would be perverse, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and not a matter that the courts should uphold.


6. As detailed in the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant is claiming £xx costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions with no reference to which Terms and Conditions the costs are associated with or how the Defendant entered into a contract with which these Terms and Conditions were a part.


7. As is required by Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A) the Claimant has not provided proof of the Claimants contractual authority to operate in the car park in question It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to BW Legal!and that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights enjoyed by the lessee company and extended to permitted drivers who were expressly allowed on site. No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;

7.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the Creditor within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowners behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.


8. The lack of adequate signage makes it impossible to enter into a contract as the first sign is placed outside of the drivers viewpoint upon entering the car park, with no way of reading, rejecting and exiting the car park without first fully entering it. The additional small signs placed throughout the car park are extremely high up with text that is so small it is unreadable at ground level. No figure for additional charges was agreed nor could it have formed part of the alleged contract because no such costs were detailed on the signs. On this basis, there can be no contract and the Claimant can have no claim.


9. The Claim Form issued by BW Legal on the xxth XXX has not been correctly filed as it was not signed by a legal entity. It does not have a valid signature. 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. Its literally just computer printed BW Legal Services Limited (Claimants Legal Representative). There's no signature.


10. The Claimant is believed to be a serial litigant, with over 1,000 similar claims identified by HM Courts Service, which is clearly against the public interest. It is the Defendants belief that this claim is yet another of the Claimants template claims and will proceed with no specific evidence or facts with which to substantiate it which demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.


11. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).


The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and 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

The defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Name

Date

KeithP

What is the Date of Issue of the Claim Form you already have?

Coupon-mad

I struggled to find an early explanation about:

''the facts are this...''

Tropicaldream

KeithP wrote: »

What is the Date of Issue of the Claim Form you already have?

30th August 2018