County Court Business Centre Claim Form via BW LEGAL

earth_moon626

Hi all, thanks for your replies. Yes I must admit I am feeling a little confused now, as this started so long ago I now feel I would respond differently than I did originally. I am including BW Legals WS and evidence here for your review. I don't feel very confident with the PoFA argument as I don't possess any of the correspondence to check it for compliance other than what BW legal have submitted in their WS however BW seem very confident that they have been compliant. I have read the schedule myself but couldnt see any obvious points to argue on. I believe my strongest argument is the inadequate signage and now also the questionable authority to enforce the contract given the poor contract produced by PPS. I do feel it best to go with what I believe is the truth which is that I cannot be sure who the driver was on the date so I cannot admit or deny being the driver. But I want to still be able to argue the signage and contract etc. 

Is it possible to argue these points without being the definite driver? I parked in the carpark once myself and so did my partner, so I can speak from real experience about the signs etc, but it isnt necessarily the time in question. 

Im sorry! Confused! I guess what I need to figure out is if it's worth me arguing the PoFA point, or if I should just sidestep that and focus on signage and the other points. 

I am also including my photo evidence to show you guys the lack of entrance signage, and the fact that no signage can be seen on entry, due to bad placement of signs and also the properties bins being placed in front of the main sign (its still this way today after 5 years). Also a photo of the entrance sign, which is copied in two other places throughout the carpark, one in the bottom corner of a parking bay that usually has a car in (the white landrover is obstructing it in the pic), the other is at the back right corner tucked behind a wall so again cannot be seen on entry. 


Thanks so much for your time, I have 3 days to submit my WS and evidence. 
Happy new year! 

KeithP

I don't feel very confident with the PoFA argument as I don't possess any of the correspondence to check it for compliance...

But you sent a SAR to the Claimant, and received a response, in October 2018.

Surely that response has the information you need.

Umkomaas

The NtK is included in the BWL WS - it is not PoFA compliant (the para 8(f)(2) is not reproduced, only a ham-fisted attempt, typical of PPCs understanding of PoFA in 2015.  But the OP needs to be able to understand and articulate it to a Judge if necessary. However, it should be included in her WS. 

As an aside, para 31 of the WS accuses the Defendant of using an internet template, suggesting unreasonable behaviour,  and signing a Statement of Truth despite the information 'not being within her full knowledge' ..... then this paralegal from an office in Leeds, hundreds of miles away from Exeter, does exactly the same.  I think that should be brought to the court's notice in the OP's WS. 

nosferatu1001

Op - of course you can talk about signage being crap. Done all the time. 

Pofa - have you now read what's been given above, and can you see how they don't comply?

Le_Kirk

Is it possible to argue these points without being the definite driver? I parked in the carpark once myself and so did my partner, so I can speak from real experience about the signs etc, but it isnt necessarily the time in question.

In your witness statement you merely state that after you received the NTK/court claim/witness statement and, having not been able to decide who the driver was on that particular date, you went to the car park and carried out research of the signage.

Fruitcake

earth_moon626 said:

Hi all, thanks for your replies. Yes I must admit I am feeling a little confused now, as this started so long ago I now feel I would respond differently than I did originally. I am including BW Legals WS and evidence here for your review. I don't feel very confident with the PoFA argument as I don't possess any of the correspondence to check it for compliance other than what BW legal have submitted in their WS however BW seem very confident that they have been compliant. I have read the schedule myself but couldnt see any obvious points to argue on. I believe my strongest argument is the inadequate signage and now also the questionable authority to enforce the contract given the poor contract produced by PPS. I do feel it best to go with what I believe is the truth which is that I cannot be sure who the driver was on the date so I cannot admit or deny being the driver. But I want to still be able to argue the signage and contract etc. 

Is it possible to argue these points without being the definite driver? I parked in the carpark once myself and so did my partner, so I can speak from real experience about the signs etc, but it isnt necessarily the time in question. 

Im sorry! Confused! I guess what I need to figure out is if it's worth me arguing the PoFA point, or if I should just sidestep that and focus on signage and the other points. 

I am also including my photo evidence to show you guys the lack of entrance signage, and the fact that no signage can be seen on entry, due to bad placement of signs and also the properties bins being placed in front of the main sign (its still this way today after 5 years). Also a photo of the entrance sign, which is copied in two other places throughout the carpark, one in the bottom corner of a parking bay that usually has a car in (the white landrover is obstructing it in the pic), the other is at the back right corner tucked behind a wall so again cannot be seen on entry. 


Thanks so much for your time, I have 3 days to submit my WS and evidence. 
Happy new year! 

My eyesight is not brilliant, but without enlarging, the date of contravention on the NTD looks like it is 10/11/2015, (or is it 2013?) yet the dates on the NTK and WS are 30/11/2015. Have a look at your paper copy of the NTD and see what you think.

Please confirm that the redactions on the contract are not you doing. 

I'll have a more detailed look later, but the the contract has failed the requirements of the Companies Act, sections 43 and 44. 

You should go through the WS one paragraph at a time, and make bullet point rebuttals. I see you have added a few comments already so you need to expand on that.

The NTK is vague in that it says the scammers have either done this, or done that. They don't actually seem to know.

You will need a copy of your insurance docs if there is more than one named person on it. 
Civil claims work on the balance of probabilities, so greater than 50%. Two names on a policy means 50% chance it was the keeper, which is not greater than 50%.
If more people are on the policy, or have/had access to the car, then the probability it was you reduces.

Go through the NTK line by line, and compare it with the PoFA.

Where a NTD is issued, this will be paragraphs 8. 
You say in your WS, the PoFA Schedule 4, para 8, 2, a) says the NTK must include this wording.
Then you say the scammer's NTK said something different, or wasn't mentioned at all.
Then go to the next sub paragraph and do the same.

What does the PoFA say must be included in a NTD. Check for omissions. 

The PoFA requires the period of parking to be shown. It doesn't appear on the NTD or NTK, so you find the part of the POFA that says this, and then say both docs failed to comply.

Etcetera.

You need to sit down somewhere quiet and do all of the above. Pull up or print out Sch 4 of the PoFA, go through it, and make bullet points. Then type them up as a set of paragraphs to include in your WS.

When I've done my housework I'll post some info about contract signatures, and what judges have said about redacting evidence, and anything else useful I can find, but you have homework to do over the next couple of days.

beamerguy

As Umkomaas says above.    This is going to be another car crash for BWLegal

DEBT RECOVERY
55:   "The signs say about the fake £60 add-on" ???
The picture you show above showing that tatty sign says nothing of the sort. Unless of course they refer to a line at the bottom of the sign which is unreadable by any human being.
They have confirmed this with the picture in their WS ?

They refer to Beavis v Parking Eye.  Why would they even highlight it when that case clearly said that the parking charge includes operational costs.  And that was £85 not £100?
We have seen the work of this para legal before and it's the same old, same old, mostly copy and paste. As long as you understand this, you can easily take BWL into another car crash

Coupon-mad

The NTK is clearly not a POFA one.  You need to read para 8 of the POFA and be able to take the Judge, pedantically, to EVERY wording omission (clue - there is more than one section of para 8 that is not in that NTK, at all).

earth_moon626

Thank you all, I really appreciate this. I am currently going through a print out of PoFA with a highlighter to mark any discrepancies with the NTKs I have. 
In answer to your questions @Fruitcake the dates of contravention are correct, they are all as should be so they made no mistake there. 
Any redactions I made to their WS doc are in red, the white redactions on the 'landowner' contract were there already so I assume BW have made those. 
Unfortunately I cannot reproduce my insurance doc from 2015.. I change provider every year and have no way of finding out who I was with.. (mental note to keep more records!!  )

Thanks! Will get on with this and update my WS and upload a new copy when its looking better. 

Coupon-mad

Don't you have emails?  I change my car insurance every year but always get emails from them with a link to each policy.