BW Legal LOC for NCP parking

KeithP

https://imgur.com/a/74jrZAp

No need to post dead links any more. You've been here long enough.

That sign by the payment machine has the £100 in the tiniest writing.

Make the most of that.

Olly123

Ok, thanks I’ll just post now rather than the dead links :-)!

I’ll redraft point 8&9 shortly and take out the signs but add in about the tiniest of £100 writing near the payment machine.

Olly123

Ok I've redrafted point 8&9 and condensed into one, please let me know your thoughts on the full draft with this included, all good and I'll send off tomorrow morning

9. Further, NCP’s other signs at that location are high up and appear to be gobbledegook, overly wordy, with no clear information about any 'contract' and with all terms in small print with a lack of white space. Vitally, the £100 charge is in much smaller lettering with the £100 next to the PDT machine being almost illegible, setting it at odds with the clear and prominent £85 parking charge that was upheld based on the unusually clear and brief signs in Beavis.

Coupon-mad

Have you got the usual point about no landowner authority/standing? I can't see it.

Olly123

Would something like the below be suitable to add in?

The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

The_Deep

Olly123 wrote: »

Would something like the below be suitable to add in?

The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

Although imo this is a perfectly valid argument in this case, you may have to put in a strong argument that your circumstances are very different from Beavis v PE at the Supreme court.

Olly123

Hi The Deep!

Thank you for the message, i have put lower down in my defence about the beavis case, is this suitable or should I add more into the point above?

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (the POFA) 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 the PCN states a maximum of £100 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' from adequately prominent, large lettering terms on copious and clear signage.

10.1.This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £241.72 in a clear attempt at double
recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.

10.2.It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage of profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, nor 'indemnity costs if applicable', whatever that cut&paste phrase may mean. The Claimant knows this, as do their solicitors who charge little or no fee to BPA members, given the connection between BW Legal and the BPA Trade Body, the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, caused by BPA/BW Legal clients artificially inflating their robo-claims.

The_Deep

It is rather waffly imo.


Th overcharging is fine, but Beavis was about a 50 minute overstay in a free shopping centre car park. There was no facility to purchase extra time.

IIRC, it was near a station and was being abused. Furthermore, PE were paying the landowner £1,000 a month to "farm" the car park, PCNs were its only source of income.

Beavis has NOTHING to do with residential car parks.

Parking Prankster has blogged in the last couple of years of a claim where a judge ruled against the PPC on this very point.

Olly123

Apologies, maybe I'm getting a bit confused over the whole Beavis case but the parking charge was received from parking in a car park in town. So thought I could only go on the signage which I've mentioned in point 9?

Final (Hopefully) Draft below. Any further advice or shall I get it printed signed and emailed off :-)

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXX on the material date. 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 was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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. The allegation appears to be based on images by the claimants ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the car park. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park and as such is not evidence of the registered keeper not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

4. The ANPR only shows that the car entered the carpark and then exited 1 hour and 34 minutes later.

5. What an ANPR fails to show and the defendant has received no evidence of; (even with repeated contact to the various companies that have harassed them) is the time it took to find a suitable parking space, to unload a buggy, to see to an ill child and to find the parking machines to purchase a ticket. There has also been no evidence given of a ticket not being purchased for the allotted time.

6. The defendant believes that without the relevant evidence of the ticket being bought and overstaying that they would have still been within the grace period allowed.

7. It is also to be noted that the parking site where the apparent infringement took place uses a pay and display system that collects the vehicle registration. As such the need to utilise ANPR on top of a paying ticket machine certainly seems like a route to use one against the other, against the rights and interests of thousands of unsuspecting visitors to the claimant’s site.

8. Further, NCP’s other signs at that location are high up and appear to be gobbledegook, overly wordy, with no clear information about any 'contract' and with all terms in small print with a lack of white space. Vitally, the £100 charge is in much smaller lettering with the £100 next to the PDT machine being almost illegible, setting it at odds with the clear and prominent £85 parking charge that was upheld based on the unusually clear and brief signs in Beavis.

9. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (the POFA) 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 the PCN states a maximum of £100 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' from adequately prominent, large lettering terms on copious and clear signage.

10.1.This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £241.72 in a clear attempt at double
recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.

10.2.It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage of profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, nor 'indemnity costs if applicable', whatever that cut&paste phrase may mean. The Claimant knows this, as do their solicitors who charge little or no fee to BPA members, given the connection between BW Legal and the BPA Trade Body, the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, caused by BPA/BW Legal clients artificially inflating their robo-claims.

11. In summary, the defendant has received no actual evidence of any breach, the only information it’s gathered is that the vehicle in question used a car park and has pictures of it entering and exiting. 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.

Coupon-mad

Olly123 wrote: »

Would something like the below be suitable to add in?

The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

No, that is not a valid argument at all. Remove it.