BW Legal "Letter Of Claim" Received

GeoStar1

Thanks Redx, I’ll get on it.

GeoStar1

Today I received a court claim from BW Legal issued on 20 March 2019. I have completed the AOS and have until 21st April to submit my defence - but I won't delay!

The claimant is Countrywide Parking Management Limited and they are claiming the following:

Amount claimed 173.68 (including statutory interest of £13.68)
Court fee £25.00
Legal representative's costs £50.00
Total amount £248.68

I am in contact with the landowner of the private car park who tells me the PPC had illegally setup a car park business at their site and had no authority and no planning permission to do so. The PPC have recently left the car park and removed all cameras and signage. The landowner is going to help me write a defence and will provide a letter explaining the above.

Unfortunately early in the process I told the PPC that I was driving but hopefully I still have plenty of evidence to mount a strong defence. Once I have drafted my defence I would appreciate any feedback.

KeithP

GeoStar1 wrote: »

Today I received a court claim from BW Legal issued on 20 March 2019. I have completed the AOS and have until 21st April to submit my defence - but I won't delay!

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th March, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 23rd April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Coupon-mad

I am in contact with the landowner of the private car park who tells me the PPC had illegally setup a car park business at their site and had no authority and no planning permission to do so. The PPC have recently left the car park and removed all cameras and signage. The landowner is going to help me write a defence and will provide a letter explaining the above.

Wow.

Some eye-opening cases on here tonight!

No worries, defend as driver. See the example defences in the NEWBIES thread.

Your main point will be 'no legitimate interest/commercial justification' as the Claimant was acting without landowner authority (or planning permission - a minor point though as they don't need it, and even advertising consent is something most Councils don't seem to care about).

This FULLY distinguishes the case from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

GeoStar1

A further question please, as the PPC have left the car park and removed all cameras and signage, will this now help my case? i.e. photos showing absent signage, pay machine and cameras? I have no idea exactly when they left but I could argue that the PCN was received 2 months after the alleged breach and I only later gone back to gather evidence? many thanks.

Umkomaas

but I could argue that the PCN was received 2 months after the alleged breach and I only later gone back to gather evidence?

Only argue based on the truth.

Them moving off the car park since the issue of your PCN is no different to you disposing if the car after the PCN was issued. The PCN still stands.

However, if there are any reasons of some 'dodgy practices' causing the removal of the PPC and you can get some written confirmation of that from the landowner, that might be something to refer to.

GeoStar1

Please find below my initial draft defence. I am planning to meet with the landowner this week to discuss the evidence for the 'no legitimate interest/commercial justification' as the Claimant was acting without landowner authority (or planning permission):

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: <>

BETWEEN:
Countrywide Parking Management Limited (Claimant)

-and-

<GeoStar1> (Defendant)



DEFENCE


Background

1. 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 the private car park/land located at 66 Onslow Road, Southampton, SO14 0JN on <Date>.

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. 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'.


Data Protection concerns

3. 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. No photographic evidence of the terms on signage has been supplied, not even in the postal PCN.

3.1. 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.

4. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras at the car park/land.

4.1. It is one thing to install PDT machines, but quite another to run a hidden ANPR camera data stream alongside the PDT data stream, and then use one against the other, against the rights and interests of thousands of unsuspecting but circumspect visitors to the car park, who are being caught out regularly by this trap.

4.2. Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' to £100 and write (months later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.

4.3. These concealed restrictions are misleading and excessive and tip the balance so far against visitors that there is an imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, which is contrary to the listed Prohibitions in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

5. Unlike the free car park in Beavis, this car park/land is a site where the Claimant has machines to take payment of tariffs. Clearly there will be Countrywide Parking Management Limited staff who could be regularly onsite to empty the money from the machines, who could reasonably enforce parking rules with drivers face to face, whilst managing the car park fairly and ensuring that any PDT machine is clear and obvious to drivers and not a hidden 'pitfall or trap'. The ANPR cameras represent disproportionate and excessive data processing, given the nature of this location, and the Claimant's DPO is put to strict proof of its data risk assessment and compliance with the Information Commissioners Office's ANPR surveillance camera Code of Practice.


Premature claim - and sparse Particulars

6. The Defendant requires a copy of the contract (the signage terms on the material date) and a full and detailed explanation of the cause of action and on what basis they purport to hold the Defendant liable. The Claimant failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the POC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

7. The Defendant has sent a subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant, for response during November 2018. A response has not yet been received but should it arrive it will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement and evidence, once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.


Denial of contract and denial of any breach, or liability

8. Due to the sparseness of the POC 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 breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

9. 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.

9.1. The POC could mean that the Claimant is suggesting the car overstayed paid for time, or even that a wrong VRN was recorded by the PDT keypad, and it is impossible for the Defendant to be certain about the alleged breach and to make an informed decision about what to say by way of defence, which puts the Defendant in a position of disadvantage.

9.2. Upon receiving this unexpected Claim, the Defendant has researched the site in order to submit a defence. There are no longer any signs or PDT machines at the car park/land.

No standing or authority to form contracts and/or litigate

10. 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 against visitors. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
No 'legitimate interest' or commercial justification - Beavis is distinguished

11. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim. This case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices.

12. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

12.1. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Countrywide Parking Management Limited have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary, given the fact that their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

13. The Defendant invites the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant's witness costs of attendance at a hearing, if so advised.

14. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


<GeoStar1>

Signature

Date

Coupon-mad

This can't be right?

7. The Defendant has sent a subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant, for response during November 2018. A response has not yet been received but should it arrive it will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement and evidence, once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.

GeoStar1

Thanks, good spot. SAR email was sent on 27th Nov, so response should have been received by January 2019 so I will amend the above accordingly.

I will re-chase/ re-send the SAR to the PPC again.

Coupon-mad

Wow have they really ignored a SAR, sent to their privacy/DPO email?