BW Legal Claim Form

Coupon-mad

A letter would not have been the best bet for a parking firm anyway, they lose them.

Sequoia1

Hi, back from my trip, now in the process of putting my defence together, I have until the end of the month to send it in. Have read a lot in the newbies and examples of defence statements, the facts are
1. I was not the driver
2. Parking signs were unclear
3. PCN was issued only 12 mins after expiry of ticket

Pas stated if fine not paid or details of driver not given within 28 day they can pursue the registered keeper. Notice to keeper was sent 6 weeks after PCN, can Pas legally pursue me for the money?
Just want to know if I should be defending myself as keeper and not the driver? I have photos of the signage which is small and states contractual terms are between the driver & Pas also no mention of grace time.

KeithP

Sequoia1 wrote: »

Pas stated if fine not paid or details of driver not given within 28 day they can pursue the registered keeper. Notice to keeper was sent 6 weeks after PCN, can Pas legally pursue me for the money?
Just want to know if I should be defending myself as keeper and not the driver?

You need to read this from post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread:

- this is why not to name the driver (thanks to The Slithy Tove for this explanation):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=69906180#post69906180

Sequoia1

Here is my draft defence, would appreciate your opinion + any changes required.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

PARKING AWARENESS SERVICES (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1.The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at xxxx car park on 0xx16.

2. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

3. 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 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and conditions which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

4. In the Particulars 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 £xxxxxx This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous. Such costs are not permitted (CPR 27.14)

5. 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.

6. The Particulars of Claim state the Claimants claim is for the sum of £100 being monies due from the Defendant to the claimant in respect of Parking Charge Notice. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence of who is liable and whether they are relying on the POFA. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

7. 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, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked within their allocated parking bay.

9. 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 particularly at night in a badly lit area It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

11. 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 £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

12. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Sequoia1

Just to note the document has numbered bullit points - didn’t come through when posting on here. Hope it’s good enough.

System

Do you write for the Daily Mail? If not take out the waffle and concentrate on the facts.

BW Legal boasted - so what

The Claimant has spent almost 3 years harassing the Defendant - another so what. And the issue of harassment is not being pleaded. The limitation for a claim is 6 years so they have saved you 3.

Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process - So what. Is it true and can you prove it to the required standard.

Edit it down to the points that are relevant; that you can prove; or you want them to prove.

And try the "so what" test as it can be very useful.

Sequoia1

Edited version above, appreciate people’s thoughts. Thanks

Sequoia1

REVISED DRAFT DEFENCE, IS THIS STRONG ENOUGH?


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

PARKING AWARENESS SERVICES (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at xxxx car park on 0xx16.

2. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

3. 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 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and conditions which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

4. In the Particulars 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 £xxxxxx This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous. Such costs are not permitted (CPR 27.14)

5. 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.

6. The Particulars of Claim state the Claimants claim is for the sum of £100 being monies due from the Defendant to the claimant in respect of Parking Charge Notice. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence of who is liable and whether they are relying on the POFA. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

7. 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, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked within the allocated parking bay.

9. 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 particularly at night in a badly lit area. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

10. The Claimant has not complied with the IPC Code of Practice Part E, in terms of clear & prominent signs at the entrance and throughout the car park.

11. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

12. 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 £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

13. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

System

Covers authority, signs, POFA, cause of action and parties. Does the job and when it gets to the WS/Skeleton stage you can go to town. You've got most of what you need via the SAR but you'll likely need to check non-domestic rates or land registry to check the chain of authority. They rarely provide a copy of their authority so you need to be able to do a background check.

Also you seem to have missed putting in that you were not the driver and that given the length of time, you are unable to say with certainty who that might have been. [Heads off the winging that you did not tell them / Elliott v Loake]

Sequoia1

Hi IamEmanresu,
Thanks for your quick reply. Question re the POFA does this give PAS the right to pursue the registered keeper?
The said car park is now under a new parking company and all the signage has changed so do not have any of my own photos only the ones by Pas.
How do find out the details of authority as Pas are no longer connected to the landowner?