Urgent BW Legal Claim Form

manwithavan101

Back in 2014 a car registered to me was parked in a local pay and display car park near me. The car park is operated by a well known local company with a reputation for issuing unfair tickets.

According to the car parking compant a PCN was issued as no ticket was displayed.

During that time residents had been informed that they could use the car park freely during the evening whilst major road works for a new sewrage system were undertaken by the responsible water company. We live in a council run resident parking area and obviously the normal bays were all ripped up. This was a massive undertaking involving digging up half our street and tunneling under a local duel carriageway.

Signs were posted in the car park - screwed to the wall in marked bays which were reserved for residents with valid residents parking permits betwen certain hours 6pm-8am reserving the bays for resident only use. For months locals had no issues then one day loads of residents got PCNs issued. I remember everyone being very upset.

The work had hit issues and was extended beyond what may have been the origional stated finish date (clearly this date was an estimation since the work was very complex invloving underground digging machines etc).

The signs were screwed to the car park wall (I believe at the request of - or even by the landowner - no pps logos). The parking company is not a leaseholder or landowner just a service company.

The signs remained screwed to the wall for the period of works - I have pictures of the car and the sign on the day of the ticket.The ticket was issued on 26/11/2014 so 5 months of residents parking there without issue at no cost. Agreement must have been made between council and landowner.


Already got some feedback on another forum but advised to check here too.


Have made FOI requests already.


I have written a draft defence but am editing it now.


PPS was company BW Legal are representing

Quentin

You don't say what you want here?


If it's advice on a LBCCA or Court claim (you don't say) then see the newbies faq thread #2


If you tell us more about this "claim form" and post your draft defence before you send it (why is it "urgent"?) for comments

KeithP

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

Who is the Claimant?

Please post the exact contents of the Particulars of Claim box on your Claim Form.

manwithavan101

I am having trouble with posting on the forum. It seems to have banned my ip address so i switched now. I was trying to post my draft.

KeithP

originbreaks wrote: »

I am having trouble with posting on the forum. It seems to have banned my ip address so i switched now. I was trying to post my draft.

This post will explain that:

Warning: Do not copy and paste content from Word, PDFs etc into your posts

manwithavan101

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. No dialogue was attempted by the Claimant or it’s representatives (BW Legal) following the registered keeper’s response to ‘The Letter Before Claim’. The response was made as requested and within the stated time frame.
3. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant is a resident of XXXXXXX, and has continued to hold a valid parking permit under the XXXX council resident parking scheme since it began. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim at the time consisted of a relatively small number of ‘private land’ parking spaces located amongst those forming a temporary residents car park as designated by car park signage (for which residents parking permits were valid). Over five months of disruption to XXXXX due to sewerage upgrades in the road, residents established the right to use and enjoy the ‘land’ freely between the hours of 6pm and 8am as indicated by the signage erected in the car park. After works by XXX overran no notification or communication of any changes to this agreement was made to residents. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a resident with a parking permit could, or could not, be allowed to park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.
4. Since an agreement existed between the principal landowner and the residents of XXX then it is unreasonable and incomprehensible that the Claimant has any legitamate interest in bringing a claim.
5. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
6. The Claimant did not follow the BPA Code of Practice, in particular with regard to signage.
7. The Claimant is put to strict 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, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
8. The Particulars of Claim state that "The Claimant also claims £XXX contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms and Conditions".
8.1 Previous letters to the defendant from BW Legal have stated that the £XXX claimed is "for our client's initial legal fees".
8.2 Legal services cannot be claimed in the small claims court as per CPR 27.14
8.3. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £XX costs to pursue an alleged £XXX debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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 £XXX.
9. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 (The Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage which formed a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park free. None of this applies in this case and is distinguished from the current claim since:
9.1 The driver did not overstay the limits as set out on the signage.
9.2 There was a lack of clarity in the Claimants signage.
9.3 The Claimant had other forms of income (See ParkingEye v Cargius (2014) CS027.
10. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

manwithavan101

PCN



The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 26/11/2014 (Issue Date) at 06:26:52 at XXXX
The PCN relates to XXX under registration XXX.

The terms of the PCN allowed the defendant 28 days ffrom the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the defendant failed to do so. Despite demmand having been made, the Defendant has failed to setle their outstanding liability.
The Claim also includes statuary interest persuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from 26/11/2014 to 14/09/2018 being an amount of £27.78
The claimant also claims £60 contractual costspersuant to PCN Terms and Conditions.

manwithavan101

The defence is due this week and it is a CC Claim form.

KeithP

Once again:

KeithP wrote: »

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

Who is the Claimant?

manwithavan101

Claimant is Premier Parking Soultions Ltd

Quentin

originbreaks wrote: »

The defence is due this week and it is a CC Claim form.

When??? .