We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
PPS/BWLegal Defence - feedback please

bongo_drummer
Posts: 11 Forumite
I intend to defend a claim from PPS/BWLegal. Please advise if the following is suitable:
Thanks in advance for any comments.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No:
BETWEEN
Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
(Defendant)
________
DEFENCE
________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. On the material date, a full payment for a 24-hour parking session was made via the cashless RingGo system. All reasonable effort was made to make payment at the time of parking but this was not possible due to a poor mobile data signal upon which the RingGo system relies. Full payment was made successfully via the RingGo system at the earliest opportunity when underlying data connectivity was available. A receipt for this payment has been submitted to the Claimant in appeal.
3. The signage at the location pre-dates the RingGo system as a payment channel as it stipulates that a valid ticket must be displayed on the dashboard or windscreen. The RingGo system makes no provision for the printing of a ticket to display. The signage was obsolete, spurious and misleading.
4. The signage also states that "full payment must be made before leaving the site". Full payment was indeed made before leaving the site for which a receipt has been produced.
5. The Defendant denies that any contractual terms were breached, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
6. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, at 4(5), 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. The Claimant has inexplicably added 'costs or damages' 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 on the Small Claims Track.
7. The Defendant invites the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant's witness costs of attendance at a hearing, if so advised.
Statement of Truth
I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.
Signature
Name
Date
Thanks in advance for any comments.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No:
BETWEEN
Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
(Defendant)
________
DEFENCE
________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. On the material date, a full payment for a 24-hour parking session was made via the cashless RingGo system. All reasonable effort was made to make payment at the time of parking but this was not possible due to a poor mobile data signal upon which the RingGo system relies. Full payment was made successfully via the RingGo system at the earliest opportunity when underlying data connectivity was available. A receipt for this payment has been submitted to the Claimant in appeal.
3. The signage at the location pre-dates the RingGo system as a payment channel as it stipulates that a valid ticket must be displayed on the dashboard or windscreen. The RingGo system makes no provision for the printing of a ticket to display. The signage was obsolete, spurious and misleading.
4. The signage also states that "full payment must be made before leaving the site". Full payment was indeed made before leaving the site for which a receipt has been produced.
5. The Defendant denies that any contractual terms were breached, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
6. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, at 4(5), 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. The Claimant has inexplicably added 'costs or damages' 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 on the Small Claims Track.
7. The Defendant invites the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant's witness costs of attendance at a hearing, if so advised.
Statement of Truth
I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.
Signature
Name
Date
0
Comments
-
bongo_drummer, please copy this post onto your existing thread.
Having done that, perhaps you can edit your post above to read something like:
Duplicate thread - please ignore
Thanks.0 -
Hi Keith, sorry I don't understand. What duplicate thread???0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards