Letter of Claim & County Court Help

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th August, you have until Tuesday 18th September to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it.

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd October 2018 to file your Defence.

Loads of time, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print the Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not, you should chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

Tropicaldream

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I struggled to find an early explanation about:

''the facts are this...''

Valid point, Ill update the opening section 1 - 1.1 to give overview of the facts. This will also be a good opportunity to highlight the fact I haven't even seen the original PCN and BW Legal have failed to respond to my request to see a copy of it.

Coupon-mad

Ooh, just like this one - have you sent the PPC a SAR then?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5882867/claim-form-from-northampton-county-court-business-centre-received&page=2

Maybe their system 'failed'...

Tropicaldream

KeithP wrote: »

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th August, you have until Tuesday 18th September to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it.

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd October 2018 to file your Defence.

Loads of time, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print the Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not, you should chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

Thanks Keith, very useful.

I was going to respond in the defence section mentioned via (https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk where i acknowledged the Claim Form) I haven't looked into the formal response process in any detail yet so this is helpful.

Tropicaldream

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Ooh, just like this one - have you sent the PPC a SAR then?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5882867/claim-form-from-northampton-county-court-business-centre-received&page=2

Maybe their system 'failed'...

Exactly like that case actually, obviously different debt recovery company (in my case Trace) but that was the first i heard about the alleged offence was through Trace not NCP. The Chronology of events section is what mines missing.

I haven't unfortunately, infact, its only since I read this forum I knew what PPC and SAR even meant. I just ignored Trace as the only option they give is to pay them or phone them. I then requested the original PCN from BW Legal.

Coupon-mad

Never too late, send the parking firm (NOT BW LEGAL) a SAR tomorrow morning asking for everything they hold, all data, all photos, copies of all records and internal notes & case status updates - and ALL letters they contend were posted.

Tropicaldream

Update:

I have received the following response from BW Legal from my email responding to the two letter of claims (asking for them to combined the two claims into one and answer my queries)

Good Afternoon



Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

Should you wish to discuss this matter via email, please confirm the following:



1.Please complete your full name



2.Please provide first line of your address



3.Please provide your postcode



You can also contact us by signing In or registering to our Online Portal at https://www.bwlegal.co.uk.



Should you have any queries please contact our office on 0113 323 4485.



Kind Regards,



BW Legal

Should I respond to this email and begin the disscusion about the claim over email or ignore and see if they carry the claims into official court "claim forms?"

I'm thinking there's no harm in answering the questions above, guessing this is just to comply with data protection? Thought best check first.

Coupon-mad

I'm thinking there's no harm in answering the questions above, guessing this is just to comply with data protection? Thought best check first.

Yes, reply to them, and mention you are also posting a SAR to their clients in order to obtain all letters, photos and data held including the alleged PCN that was never served, since parking firms withhold such information otherwise and then ambush Defendants in court, which is clearly unacceptable.

Tropicaldream

Yes, reply to them, and mention you are also posting a SAR to their clients in order to obtain all letters, photos and data held including the alleged PCN that was never served, since parking firms withhold such information otherwise and then ambush Defendants in court, which is clearly unacceptable

Thanks, I have emailed them back and I'll do the SAR this weekend.

Thanks again for your time and advice

Tropicaldream

Revised defence below with a Chronology of events added to set the scene. Any comments would be appreciated?

Chronology of events:

1. Received letter from Trace Recovery UK Ltd: xxth May - Demand for payment claiming that I received a PCN from NCP of which I have never received. The letter gave no option to appeal.

2. Received letter from Trace Recovery UK Ltd: xxth May - Another Demand for payment letter which again gives no option to appeal.

3. Received letter of claim from BW Legal: xxth July - the letter requested a response before 24th August which I responded to in detail explaining my current situation and requesting the a copy of the alleged PCN. I received no response from BW Legal.

4. Received Claim Form from County Court Business Centre - Defence below.

5. Received another letter from BW Legal on 30th August acknowledging my response but ignoring my requests for information. This letter advising that a notice of county court claim has been issued and threatens with CCJs.

Defence

6. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of vehicle registration mark xxx which is the subject of these proceedings.

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

7. 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 BW Legals “Letter of Claim” dated 20th July which has received no formal response.


8. 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.


9. The Defendant believes that the claim has been artificially inflated and that the claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original charge, including £60 for Legal Representatives costs which is not permitted for the small claims track under CPR 27.14. In any case the Defendant disputes the Claimant has incurred £60 Legal Representatives Costs pursuing an alleged £100 debt.


10. 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.

11 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.

12 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.


13. As detailed in the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant is claiming £160 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.


14. 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;

15 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.


16. 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.


17. The Claim Form issued by BW Legal on the 20th July 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.


18. 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.


19. 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