County Court Claim - BW Legal.. Help!!!

owlsman

Thanks everyone so far who has helped. And no problems searching the forums myself. I realise this is mostly on me to do.. with a little (maybe lots) of help from the people who actually know what they are doing/talking about.

Although maybe when this is all over and I have been through it I can come back and help those who are at the beginning... like where I am now.

beamerguy

owlsman wrote: »

Thanks everyone so far who has helped. And no problems searching the forums myself. I realise this is mostly on me to do.. with a little (maybe lots) of help from the people who actually know what they are doing/talking about.

Although maybe when this is all over and I have been through it I can come back and help those who are at the beginning... like where I am now.

Do remember that the new debt protocol is designed
to get both parties to resolve issues before court action
is taken. BWLegal have not offered that chance which
will not impress a judge plus ..... you have no idea what
they are claiming for and they have not proven it

The_Deep

Nope, sorry DP, I have a lot less time than you think

DP puts Immigration Officer hat on.

I find that very difficult to believe CM

Coupon-mad

Do you, DP?

You have no idea about where I am, what I'm doing, what my job involves, why I stay up late, none of which tells you I have time on my hands!

beamerguy

I think Mr Deep is on a gin and tonic roll, bit early though:)

KeithP

owlsman wrote: »

So in answer to some questions.

But not this one...

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

3) Tell us the ISSUE DATE of the claim form.

owlsman

Hi folks. First draft of defense. Critique and guidance appreciated.

Thanks...

Statement of Defence

I am xxx, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a. The Claimant did not identify the driver
b. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
3. The original Parking Charge Letter was posted to me on 03/12/2015 and an appeal via email was lodged on 06/01/2016. The appeal was based on the fact that I do indeed have a valid permit to park in the area to allow the drop off of children to the local school. The school issues these permits. Unfortunately on the day it would appear that the permit had been dislodged from the windscreen area of my car. Despite appealing no appeal decision was received from Premier Parking Solutions and no offer was made to take it to an independent appeals company.
4. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence.
In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
e. Another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of Northampton County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
f. On the 19th August 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.!

5. I was not in receipt of a compliant “Letter Before Court Claim”, under the Practice Direction, meaning the Defendant could not compile a Formal Response. This is in direct contradiction with paragraph 7 of the particulars where the Claimant’s solicitor states ‘The Claimant has complied with the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims’ and the Defendant believes that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. The Defendant invites the Claimant to provide proof of their compliance.

6. Premier Parking Solutions are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
7. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read. The car park signage font is below the required sizing. Industry standard signs recommend a minimum height of 3 inches in a bold font to have any readable impact at 30 feet.
(g)In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA
c. The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the permit in the windscreen, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
d. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

8(a) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 as per the PCN issued on 22/10/2015. This appears to be an added cost with no apparent qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

9(a)No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 legal representative costs and £25 court fees.
c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
d) Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
e) The Claimant described the charge of £110 "legal representative costs’’ not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
10. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
a. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

System

xxxxx- do you want your details public?

Is this Mill Hill?

owlsman

No and No.... but thank-you for heads up

nosferatu1001

Issue date forthcoming at any point?