BW Legal: correspondence advice

nosferatu1001

Ok, did you actually submit yor defence to the court as you were told?
You only have tomorrow to file it now

Reggie12345

Also attached with the responce BW legal gave me is a document of the car park site map with locations of ANPR camaras & signage with photos.

The interesting point beeing that the document they have sent states it is version 1 of the document was created July 2017 with a last updated date of 15/11/17. This bears substantial meaning in my case as the tickets they are persuing myself over start on 16/11/17.

I know they had an ANPR installed at this time. I believe this was the amendment to the document. I have managed to get pictures from Google maps showing no ANPR installed (picture dated September 2017)

Reggie12345

According to previous responses I have until 4pm Tuesday to file.

Currently working on what to put in the defence.

Reggie12345

Is it worth mentioning anything about the ANPR installation within my defence?

Reggie12345

Hi,
Please find my defence below, your comments are much apreciated:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

National Car Parks Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

7. 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.
8. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time'.

9. The Defendant had no idea about any ANPR surveillance and received no letters after the initial 'PCN' a vague document which gave no indication as to what the alleged breach actually was.
10. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect £100 instead of the few pounds’ tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.

11. 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
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Don't wait till Tuesday.

I think as a forum 'team of volunteers' we should lie by one day to people, as to when their deadline is, due to human nature to procrastinate till the last minute.
I always tell a white lie to students at at school, about deadlines to get a form in. Works like a treat, no-one is late because they think 'late' is an earlier date!

Anyway, we assume that !!!8221; is a glitch due to your apostrophe keys, and that your actual defence has no !!!8221; (just checking! You would not believe what some posters just copy...).

And this gives away who was driving:

9. The Defendant had no idea about any ANPR surveillance

...which I don't think is your intention?

Also your defence says nothing about the allegation in the NTK:

parking your vehicle in the car park whilst failing to make payment of the parking charge.

So what happened and is there any scope for a Grace Periods argument?

Reggie12345

Yes totally agree with the one day earlier, as things can go wrong!

Reggie12345

Yes the !!821 will be filled with my name and vehicle details repectively.

Reggie12345

Let me expand about point 9.

The ANPR was installed the day before (according to the signage document revision sent by BW legal) of my aparant first parking contract breech. Thus I think its worth putting in.

Coupon-mad

Aha - DEFINITELY - and quote from the BPA CoP about 'new' restrictions...