Small Claim Now Issued - bwlegal - letter of claim, reply then response, next steps

samboella

Thanks for the responses.  It's very much appreciated.
I'm editing the letter now.
They've added interest and contractual costs, taking the total to £112.92 before the court fee and legal representative costs.
I've checked on MCOL and I still have the option of submitting a defense.
Issue date of Claim form was 10th March.  I submitted AOS on 29th March - it shows as received on the 30th in MCOL.
I'll post back my facts for #16 and #17 shortly.
Thanks again.

samboella

Okay - these are my facts for #16 and #17. Are they detailed enough?
=====================================================

16. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge. 

17. When the car park was entered on the alleged date of the offense, there was no designated parking available due to a large event taking place.  As such, it was not possible to get into the main area of the car park as there was lots of traffic and stationary buses blocking the flow of traffic.  We found a small gap on the grass and, like other vehicles, parked there.  There was not a single, prominent sign visible from the car or anywhere around us.  Three different passengers in the car and not one of us saw a parking sign.
=============================================================================================
Does it make sense putting those facts for #17 when #18 goes on to talk about the signage with small fonts?  (Which is true because I obtained a picture of the parking sign at a later date).
Thanks

Umkomaas

the alleged date of the offense

It was not an 'offense' (sic). Use 'parking event'. 

Does it make sense putting those facts for #17 when #18 goes on to talk about the signage with small fonts?  (Which is true because I obtained a picture of the parking sign at a later date).

State that you returned to the site at a later date to examine the signage. That visit confirmed to you that the signage was insufficient .......

Coupon-mad

They've added interest and contractual costs, taking the total to £112.92 before the court fee and legal representative costs.

Is that a typo?  How much was the Parking charge on the sign and the PCN?  Normally it's £80 or £100 then they add £60 on the left of the N1 claim form, near the interest, and call it a '£60 contractual debt as per the signs' or similar. 

The LBC you showed us in 2018 said £160.

This is really important as we may need you to use a shorter defence.

Johnersh

I hope you're still in time (you may not be). File a defence ASAP. 

The letter pre-action suggests they're seeking more than £200, which sounds much more like it. 

If you're parked on some grass, they're gonna need to show that is within the demised land that the ppc are required to patrol. They cannot ticket for trespass over land. If it isn't the car park, if its not within the owner's land or even the area they are contracted to patrol, then they can do one.

It'd be helpful to see the terms of the sign they do say were applicable. 

samboella

Thanks Umkomas.  I'll make those amendments.
No, it's not a typo Coupon-Mad.  The charge was originally £100.  They've added £12.92 interest and the £60 contractual costs., taking it to £172.92 (I assumed this was the global sum) plus £75 court fees and legal costs.  Grand total £247.92.
I'm just trying to find the picture I took back in 2018.

samboella

Here are the parking signs:

Johnersh

Well, if you're liable to pay up to £60 on an indemnity basis, they best be prepared to prove they've incurred £60 of costs, not mere overhead, which would've been incurred anyway.  They may struggle. 

The signage is, however, better than most and the grass is clearly within the remit of the parking patrols.

Coupon-mad

The 'global sum' for point #2 of the defence, is £160 then.  You are not meant to add the interest there.

Add here what sort of car park it is and the nature of your visit, whether it was the first time of going there, etc.

16. It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge. 

...and have you amended the Statement of Truth at the bottom of this defence, to replace it with the longer, new one for April 2020 onwards, as the NEWBIES thread tells you?  I just haven't edited the teplate defence yet as I have some changes to make to it (nothing major).

samboella

Thanks all.
Just going to email the final defense across now with the amended statement of Truth as per the NEWBIES thread and additional info suggested by Coupon-Mad.
I appreciate you all taking the time to respond.  Hopefully, I'm in time!