NCP / BW Legal - Claim Form received

KeithP

Fingerbobs wrote: »

My reason for holding off submitting the AoS is that I have to state my intention to "defend all of the claim" - which I am not sure I will do yet.

Does it matter if I do this, but then subsequently decide not to submit a defence?

So state that you do intend to defend all of the claim - just follow that Dropbox guide in it's entirety.

If you don't do the Aos, the Claimant can ask for a Judgment by default after 14 days.

If you do do the Aos, the Claimant has to wait another 14 days before asking for a Judgment by default.

So an extra 14 days to cogitate.

If subsequently you don't bother to defend anything the Claimant will get a Judgment by default after the 28 days.

Do the Aos now.

Fingerbobs

KeithP wrote: »

So state that you do intend to defend all of the claim - just follow that Dropbox guide in it's entirety.

If you don't do the Aos, the Claimant can ask for a Judgment by default after 14 days.

If you do do the Aos, the Claimant has to wait another 14 days before asking for a Judgment by default.

So an extra 14 days to cogitate.

If subsequently you don't bother to defend anything the Claimant will get a Judgment by default after the 28 days.

Do the Aos now.

Will do. Thanks for your help :-)

Fingerbobs

KeithP wrote: »

Do the Aos now.

I've done the AOS, and still working on my draft Defence.

Just to add that today I've received another letter from BW Legal to tell me that I will be receiving the Claim Form soon - 2 days after I've received it :-)
They're nothing if not efficient.

Fingerbobs

Here's my first attempt, admittedly shamelessly plagiarised from another thread on here.

<old defence snipped>

I don't like No. 11 really - it seems like it disincentivises them to drop the case, which is really what I want.

Comments appreciated.

KeithP

I didn't see it, but is there anything in your Defence that says what you might have been accused of doing wrong?

Nothing about the signs not being clear enough?

Nothing about whether as the vehicle's keeper you are liable or not?

Nothing about whether the keeper was the driver or not?

No mention of POFA?


Just thoughts. You may have good reasons.

System

@FB.

How much of it is true e.g have you read the Practice Direction and understand if it applies?

Coupon-mad

I agree with KeithP, in that you have said this:

5. The charge is clearly an unenforceable penalty with no basis in costs incurred by the alleged contravention. If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (i.e. the tariff), identified as completely different from the complex 'free parking licence' arrangement in Beavis.

...and you talk about pay-per-hour car parks but that's not enough to be clear what your defence is. Higher up, as point #2, you need to state the facts about what the alleged contravention is, whether you are the admitted driver (or not, or you cannot recall) and what you know or do not know.

If you do not know, say this:

The original demand letter showed photographs of the Defendant's car entering and exiting the car park, with timings suggesting that the vehicle had stayed for just over 3 hours in the car park. The length of time that was actually paid for is not stated anywhere on any of the letters or documentation, or in the Particulars of Claim. All of the documentation only includes entry and exit timings, and the event in question occurred more than six months ago so the Defendant does not actually know how long was paid for, but avers that the Claimant has not allowed a reasonable observation period and grace period (either side of paid-for time) in flagrant disregard for the BPA Code of Practice.

Remove #10 and replace it with the usual point (as succinctly written in defences by bargepole that I've linked in the NEWBIES thread) about no standing to sue because they do not own the car park.

And add a section on BPA grace periods.

And add a section on no keeper liability as you believe NCP did not comply with the POFA Schedule 4 as the signs are sparse and wordy, and there was no relevant obligation on the driver.

Is it a station or London Underground car park; a railway bylaws site?

And - first - as you have a few weeks to defend this, once you've done the AOS on MCOL, urgently send NCP an online/email SAR to their Data Protection Officer* asking for all photos, all letters, PCN and all data held, including the times of arrival and time of payment and how long they are alleging the car ''overstayed'' as that data does not appear anywhere.


* see their Privacy page for contact email. Do the SAR urgently, to see the facts.

Fingerbobs

Thanks for all the comments, which I have taken on board and am working on Draft 2.

Just one question - if I indicate that I know what the alleged contravention is (i.e. the PCN to Keeper I received claiming an overstay) does that not undermine Point 3 where I say I can't make a good defence because they haven't provided enough information on the Claim Form?

Would I be better off ditching point 3 and just stating my defence?

The_Deep

I can afford to pay them, so I would only be fighting "on principle"

No, you would ks be fighting them because it is a scam which, , I am sure, has driven at least one victim to kill themselves. Read/watch what MPs think about it.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by in the not too distant future..

You would also be fighting it because it is believed that some of these companies have links to organised crime. "First they came for the socialists …"

Fingerbobs

Draft 2:
<old defence snipped>
As always, thanks for the help, and comments appreciated!