Bw legal

Redx

why have you waited a week ?

the defence has to be submitted soon and these SAR requests can take up to 30 days, I cannot believe you did not do it as soon as CM mentioned it

unbelievable

Tg1

I haven’t ‘waited’ just been extremely busy with work and the only time I have to try and do this has been taken up by family commitments and other work commitments.

KeithP

We no have till the 16th of October to enter a defence.

No idea where that date came from, but I guess the CCBC told your wife that. Would be good to have it in writing though.

When you are happy with the content, the 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 chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

KeithP

Slight addendum:

Remember that the court's working day ends at 4pm, so the Defence must be filed before that time on deadline day.

Tg1

the date of the 16th October was provided by the CCBC,she is still yet to receive the official 'Claim'


i will get on to the defence tomorrow night and try to get something drawn up on the limited information i have.


is it worth doing as mention in one of the replies above



Also - a suggestion - she should send a SAR to the CCBC for a copy of all data held and a copy of the claim form...! She must attach proof of who she is and that the VRN and her postal address is her personal information (so, a copy of the V5 and a utility bill maybe, should be enough to establish she IS that named Defendant). ??????

KeithP

Tg1 wrote: »

Also - a suggestion - she should send a SAR to the CCBC for a copy of all data held and a copy of the claim form...! She must attach proof of who she is and that the VRN and her postal address is her personal information (so, a copy of the V5 and a utility bill maybe, should be enough to establish she IS that named Defendant). ??????

Yes do that.

Include a request for any log entries that show that the Claim Form was sent to the Defendant and to which address it was sent.

I recall a few weeks ago someone sent a SAR to the CCBC and received confirmation from the CCBC that they had not sent the Claim Form to the Defendant at all. [STRIKE]Unfortunately I cannot think of suitable search keywords to find it again[/STRIKE].

Edited to add:

Found it:

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74873511#post74873511

Tg1

Thanks for your help Keith :beer:

Tg1

Just received this back from bw legal following my email last night. Doesn’t seem like they are prepared to furnish me with the claim particulars or sum calculations. They have also side stepped to fact I have not received a claim form.

Good Afternoon,

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

We confirm receipt of your Acknowledgement of Service of the Claim and await to hear from you in relation to your Defence.

Kind Regards,

Litigation Department
bwlegal

Tg1

As you are aware I have very little in the way of evidence to be able to use in my defence or for the statement,also not knowing where to start I have read through a few threads that are similar circumstances as mine so as a defence it’s a copy and paste job from the Matilda13 thread by coupon mad.

Defence



IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: to be added in the original
BETWEEN:

Private Parking Solutions Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxx Tg1 xxx(Defendant)


DEFENCE



1. It is admitted that Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However the Claimant has no cause of action and has filed this claim without providing any information to the Defendant whatsoever.

1.1 Neither the Defendant, nor any other possible drivers, recall any 'parking charge notice' (PCN) from the past, nor does the Defendant even know where the car park was, having only the vague Particulars of Claim (POC). Any contractual agreement - and thus any breach - is denied.

2. The POC alleges that the Defendant was 'the registered keeper and/or the driver' of the vehicle, thereby vaguely offering a menu of choices copied from BW Legal's latest batch of robo-claims issued in September 2018. The Claimant has and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the POC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

2.1. 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.

2.2. The vague POC discloses nothing that can lead to a claim in law. The parking event was far too long ago to expect a registered keeper to recall the day or who was driving, and it is believed from the Defendant's research of similar cases, that this Claimant did not use compliant documents to hold a registered keeper liable anyway.

3. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (the POFA) has not been being 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

4. 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 licence 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.

5. 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).

5.1. 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. 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 Premier Parking Solutions Ltd and that this chain of contracts was valid in its entirety on the date of the alleged offence.

7. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

8. Prior to any court hearing the Defendant has sent the Claimant a Subject Access Request (SAR) for the following:

8.1.(i) copies of the signs on which the Claimant relies and confirm with photographic evidence, that the signs were in situ on the date of the event.

(ii) Images of the signs that were at the entrance to the site on the date in question. Also to confirm that the signs met the BPA CoP that applied at the time of the alleged parking event.

(iii) copies of any letters sent, including the original PCN and/or Notice to Keeper.

(iv) a full breakdown of the amount of the claim and how the amount was derived.

(v) the Claimant's reasons why they believe the keeper has liability.

9. The POFA does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. That sum cannot have exceeded the BPA CoP ceiling of £100 and the Claimant cannot recover additional charges.

10. The Claimant has inexplicably added 'costs or damages' bolted onto the alleged PCN, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

10.1. 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.

10.2. 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.

10.3. 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.

10.4. 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.

11. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim and allow the Defendant to respond to those POC.

12. The Defendant has sent a SAR to the Claimant, for response during October 2018, and will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement and evidence, once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.

13. 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


Im seeing this as a start and by no means a finished statement so some guidance would be great.
◦

System

Do you have any earlier information such as a ticket or Notice to Keeper or LBCC that gives a hint about the issue?

And how can you in all honestly talk about vague particulars when you claim to have had no particulars at all. It is stretching the word "vague" to its limits.

Is there any reason why you have to use a template?