Norwich Traffic Control make claim via Northampton County Court against me... HELP!

KeithP

elgordo9 wrote: »

I'm unsure of the next steps from here, has anyone else had any experience of this?

Quite surprised to read that.

Post #10 above included:

7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

elgordo9

KeithP wrote: »

Quite surprised to read that.

Post #10 above included:

My apologies! I haven't received the directions questionnaires yet so I'll give the court a call tomorrow to see if they've sent it out.

KeithP

elgordo9 wrote: »

My apologies! I haven't received the directions questionnaires yet so I'll give the court a call tomorrow to see if they've sent it out.

You could login to MCOL to see if they have sent you your DQ.

elgordo9

KeithP wrote: »

You could login to MCOL to see if they have sent you your DQ.

Nothing on MCOL to say they have been sent. It's been 7 days since I received BW legal's notice that they intend to continue with the claim along with their copy of a directions questionnaire. Seems odd. Could it be that BW Legal haven't yet notified the court and this is another underhand tactic of theirs?

KeithP

elgordo9 wrote: »

Could it be that BW Legal haven't yet notified the court and this is another underhand tactic of theirs?

Of course it could.

Wait patiently for your DQ from the CCBC, or down load one from the court form finder webpages if you wish.

Coupon-mad

This happens on every BW Legal thread, with everyone asking what to do, as if it's new. It's one of their games, obviously, to submit an early DQ to make people doubt themselves and feel on the back foot an unsure what to do.

I've replied to at least a dozen cases like this in the past month and it saves our typing fingers if you simply bookmark some other threads and read them, as well as the NEWBIES thread, before asking a question that someone else has usually asked an hour earlier.

Saves our time for defences, WS and evidence stage where people really need us.

elgordo9

Hi All,

I have just received a letter from BW Legal, setting out their client's position in response to my defence. They have also, for the very first time, included photographs as evidence of the alleged contravention. Oddly enough these photos were not supplied to me as part of my earlier SAR.

I have a couple of points to raise and argue against, but I am now hesitant to post them on here as I am aware that BW Legal and NTC are likely to be reading this thread. Would anyone be willing to discuss via private messaging?

I do fully intend on revealing how I win or lose this case when it's finished!

https://imgur.com/a/nfFmRVI

KeithP

You would be wise to obliterate BWL's reference number from that letter.

It uniquely identifies you and your incident.



Now that you've asked others to PM you, take care about who you trust.

The parking companies are known to trawl this forum and some people might not have the same objective that you do.

elgordo9

KeithP wrote: »

You would be wise to obliterate BWL's reference number from that letter.

It uniquely identifies you and your incident.



Now that you've asked others to PM you, take care about who you trust.

The parking companies are known to trawl this forum and some people might not have the same objective that you do.

I have removed the reference number now, thank you!

elgordo9

Hi All,

This was my defence.

IN THE COUNTY COURT Claim No: #######
BETWEEN:
Norwich Traffic Control Limited (Claimant)

-and-

ME (Defendant)

DEFENCE
1. I am MY NAME, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. The claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when allegedly parking at St Andrews House Car Park, Norwich on 15/04/2017.
1.1 The Claimant has no cause of action and has filed this claim whilst providing minimal information to the Defendant.
1.2. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £70 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.
2. Due to the sparseness of the Particulars, it is 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 breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
2.1 Despite several Subject Access Requests to both BW Legal and Norwich Traffic Control under GDPR, the defendant has not been provided with any further information that may elaborate on the inadequacies of the Particulars. The defendant is therefore left with very little basis to build a defence upon.
3. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction and the Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
4. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (the POFA) has not been complied with. The registered keeper was unaware of the PCN and does not admit to being a driver of the vehicle in question on the date in question, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.
5. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time and committed to follow its requirements, and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of compliance with the applicable Code of Practice.
6. Had any contravention apparently taken place (and this is not confirmed), it can only have been that signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP).
6.1. 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.
6.2. 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. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park free. From research of similar cases and given the woeful POC and lack of any previous information, the Defendant doubts that any legitimate interest or clear signage applies in this case.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it had sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it had the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation in its own name on the material date. The Claimant appears to be a contractor on an agent/principal basis operating under a bare licence to erect signs and collect monies from the machines, and no doubt, to issue PCNs - but 'on behalf of' the landowner, which would give them no authority or standing.
9. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
9.1. These have been variously described as ‘NTC’s initial legal costs’ and/or a ‘contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions'. There is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £215.56. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
9.1.1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £70. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and a further £50 for ‘legal representative’s costs’. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
9.1.2. In any event, the Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime.
9.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.
9.2.1. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
10. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name:

Signature:

Date: 22/10/2018