BW legal, court action soon, please help.

SajStars123

Hi, could you help please?

I am being pursed through the courts with BW Legal for an outstanding parking fine. Usually i just end up paying them but i have had enough of them now and now that they will purse further ones if i submit to this one (I know they have at least one more PCN).

Could someone please help me, i have read through the newbie section and perform an AOS. I have also requested for more information, which they have responded via post. I have the pictures.

From the reading it seems i must build a defense, which i have done (taken from another one), could someone please tell me this will work or not work?

Thank you for your help.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>DEFENCE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: E7DP1Y4W

BETWEEN:

Total Parking SolutionsLimited

-and-

Mr X

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at car park on X.

Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £128.30 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and conditions which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

In the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £203.30 This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous. Such costs are not permitted (CPR 27.14)

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.

The Particulars of Claim state the Claimants claim is for the sum of X being monies due from the Defendant to the claimant in respect of Parking Charge Notice. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence of who is liable and whether they are relying on the POFA. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked within the allocated parking bay.

The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily particularly at night in a badly lit area It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

It can also be noted that the Claimant has failed to act on Notice 18 requesting further information with regard to the claim. The email was sent X (included in the defence).

The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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 £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name: x
Signature: x
Date: x



 
Claim No: X
Yahoo/Sent
To: [email]info@totalparking.co.uk,enquiries@bwlegal.co.uk[/email]
14 Oct at 21:28
Dear Sirs
Request for Further and Better particulars
Regarding the above and claim form, leading on from PCN (x) it is necessary to ask for more information regarding a purported debt to yourselves. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of the Practice Directions 16.4 as there are woefully insufficient details for me to form a defence. As such, please answer the following questions. Please respond, in full, within 14 days. Failure to respond will be recorded and shared during any future court proceedings.
Standing to bring a Claim
1. Please identify the landowner.
2. Please confirm that the Claimant can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner either by way of a written authority contract, deed or lease.
a). That this/these document(s) is/are in the Claimant’s possession or if not when they will be.
b). That such document(s) are available for inspection and if not when they will be.
c). That copies of the document(s) can be provided and that the originals will be available at court.
Breach of Contract?
3. What is the basis of the claimants claim?
(a) An agreed contract?
(b) A breach of contract?
(c) Trespass?
4. If 3.a or 3.b, what is the claimant’s legal capacity to offer parking at the location? And how is that supposed contract created, by sign, by permit or by some other means.
5. If 4.c what is the claimant’s legal capacity if not the land-owner or lessee?
The Contract
6. If it is the Claimant’s case that their claim is based in contract and that such a contract was conveyed by way of signs displayed at the location please confirm the following:
a). That the Claimant is able to produce a copy of all the various signs at the location as they were on the date the PCN was issued, indicating the various text point sizes together with a map or plan showing where they are deployed on site.
b). A schedule of works/maintenance showing how and when such signs on-site were repaired, replaced and cleaned etc.
c) Full proof that the signage complied with the relevant Code of Practice on the date the PCN was issued.
Evidence of a Contract, Breach of Contract or Trespass
7. Please confirm whether it is the Claimant’s intention to adduce photographs and/or CCTV footage of the relevant event and:
a). That such photographs and/or footage is in the Claimant’s possession and if not when it will be?
b). That such photographs and/or footage are available for inspection and if not when they will be?
c). That copies of the photographs and/or footage can be provided and that all the originals will be available at court.
Additional Costs claimed
8. Please confirm that the Claimant has in his possession an analysis of the costs incurred that form the addit

Fruitcake

Edit your post to remove all personal information. This includes your name, case number, VRN and anything else that can identify you.

lease ensure you have deleted the text in your duplicate post as already advised on that thread.

SajStars123

+±++++++++++++++Closed+±++++++++++++
Duplicate thread
±++++++±+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Redx

edit post #1 and remove the personal info like name, reference etc


do this in both threads


pm crabman or soolin and ask for the duplicate thread to be deleted (this one ?)

The_Deep

Have you seen this

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

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

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

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

Fruitcake

SajStars123 wrote: »

+±++++++++++++++Closed+±++++++++++++
Duplicate thread
±++++++±+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Not here! Replace the text of the first post in your other thread with the above, and do an Advanced Edit on the title of your other thread.

Edit out your personal details on THIS thread.

You have work to do before anyone can start helping you.

SajStars123

I don't have the ability to edit the posts. It is greyed out.

Redx

use a laptop, not a smartphone

SajStars123

Previous thread has been edited for deletion. Hope that helps.

Redx

good , now edit post #1 and remove the identifiers like claim no etc

KeithP

You will also need to edit the opening post on all four threads you started when you were using the username skhurshid.

Every single one of them has the same identifying personal information visible.