BWLegal LBC letter

ggwp

Thanks Keith. I was looking at this from the wrong angle and have now aimed it more at the Particulars of Claim. Please see my revised draft

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Britannia Parking Ltd (Claimant)
and
Me (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to part of, or any of, the sum claimed

2. The Defendant denies any breach of contract, and further denies that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant’s alleged £100 ‘Parking Charge Notice (PCN)’

3. To the best of the defendant’s knowledge, the driver fully complied with car park rules by parking within the allowed time permitted, including reasonable Grace Periods which are outlined in the section 13 of the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP)

4. The Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action within the Particulars of Claim. 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

5. The Particulars of Claim states that the Claimant “allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN”. The issue date was ##/##/2017, but the first letter the Defendant received was dated ##/##/2018. Proof of any parking infraction was not received until ##/##/2019 which was sent by BW Legal, not the Claimant

6.. The Particulars of Claim also claims an additional “£60.00 contractual costs according to the PCN Terms and Conditions”. The Terms and Conditions state “recovery charges in respect of further action may apply”. The recovery service used by the Claimant, Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, do not charge a fee unless successful, so this claim should not be considered

7. The Particulars of Claim goes on to say “Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability”. Although demands were made, in the form of threatening and aggressive Debt Recovery letters, and threats of court, there was complete refusal to allow an appeal process and complete denial by the Claimant to send proof or details of the parking infraction until an official Subject Access Request (SAR) was sent on ##/##/2019

7.1 Section 22.3 of the BPA CoP states “If the motorist asks for it, you should make available any photographic evidence you have". All requests were ignored until the SAR was sent

7.2 Section 22.2 of the BPA CoP states “Motorists should first use your procedures for resolving appeals, before being able to refer them to an independent appeal”. Both requests for an appeal to the Claimant, and then POPLA, were refused by the Claimant

7.3 Section 22.1 of the BPA CoP states that the Claimant “...must have procedures for dealing fairly, efficiently and promptly with any communication…”. The Defendant feels that none of the procedures have been fair. Being harassed by threats of court and debt collection letters, after never receiving a Notice to Keeper or any proof of a parking infraction and repeatedly asking for evidence, does not seem fair to the Defendant

7.4 The Defendant hopes that the presiding Judge will see this gross and unfair abuse of process and may consider using the court’s case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition

8. 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

9.The Claimant has failed the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so the defendant is not liable under the POFA 2012

9.1 The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not followed the correct procedures outlined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by identifying who the driver of the vehicle was and therefore the Defendant, as keeper, is not liable for the charge

9.2 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.

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.

For the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such witness costs for attendance at trial as are permissible pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

beamerguy

ggwp .... always listen to Keith, he is savvy and knows what he is doing.

From my perspective as a non legal your job is to grab the judge by the balls with a header that makes him think ???
The rest falls in line

There is currently an ad on TV that shows an older guy jumping over a fence, backwards and forwards and his mate says that's amazing ?

He then goes on to say the products he bought for his cottage pie, he saved money at Lidl ?????

What on earth is the connection ?

Too many people go wrong by not connecting to the judge

ggwp

Thanks.. I think I get your point. Perhaps I have gone too far in the other direction now. I will take a look at it again tomorrow with fresh eyes. I'm away next week but I'll try and spend some more time reading through similar defences and finalise it next weekend

beamerguy

ggwp wrote: »

Thanks.. I think I get your point. Perhaps I have gone too far in the other direction now. I will take a look at it again tomorrow with fresh eyes. I'm away next week but I'll try and spend some more time reading through similar defences and finalise it next weekend

Look, your defence is ok but understand that a judge in one day will see maybe 6 cases, not all parking.
He/she will skim read and maybe miss the important parts

You need an ATTENTION GRABBER

Something the dodgy legals fail to do

ggwp

Hiya

I have written a further defence which I feel is a little more concise and hammers home the breach of BPA and POFA a bit more.

I wanted to get some advice... I technically never received a Notice to Keeper as it was sent to an old address, and I didn't receive the first indication of any problems until Debt Collection and I was traced.

Is this something I could put as failing on BPA and POFA? Although they may have sent the NTK, I never received it... I didn't update my V5C until after the Debt Collection letters, could this be used as proof potentially?

Only after a SAR did I receive a copy of the original NTK, but they refused to send images of signage, previous correspondence or a Landowner agreement. Is it worth mentioning these too? Are they required to send these by law?

Thanks

Umkomaas

I wanted to get some advice... I technically never received a Notice to Keeper as it was sent to an old address, and I didn't receive the first indication of any problems until Debt Collection and I was traced.

Is this something I could put as failing on BPA and POFA? Although they may have sent the NTK, I never received it... I didn't update my V5C until after the Debt Collection letters, could this be used as proof potentially?

That's a problem entirely of your own creation I'm afraid. The PPC can request registered keeper data only once from the DVLA. The DVLA provides them with the data (name and address) they hold at the time, taken from information supplied by you on the V5C.

Only after a SAR did I receive a copy of the original NTK, but they refused to send images of signage, previous correspondence or a Landowner agreement. Is it worth mentioning these too? Are they required to send these by law?

A SAR is about personal information they hold about you (and/or the VRM of your vehicle). Signage and landowner agreements contain no personal information about you, so they are within their rights to withhold it. However, as part of the response to their LBC, you have the opportunity to seek such information under the auspices of the PAP for Debt Claims - write to the solicitors and ask.

I'm not clear what you were seeking in the SAR 'previous correspondence'? If you mean correspondence with you, then you're entitled to receive it - send them a further SAR.

ggwp

I have until this Wednesday to finalise my defence so some further advice would be really appreciated. I feel like it's definitely coming along now...

I have also requested further explanation from BW Legal as to who the landowner is

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to part of, or any of, the sum claimed

2. The Defendant denies any breach of contract, and further denies that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant’s alleged £100 ‘Parking Charge Notice (PCN)’.

3. To the best of the Defendant’s knowledge, as registered keeper of the vehicle at the time, the driver fully complied with car park rules by parking within the allowed time permitted, including reasonable Grace Periods which are outlined in the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) clause number 13

4. The Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action within the Particulars of Claim. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 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: whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass

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 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

7. The Claimant has disregarded many parts of the BPA CoP including Clauses: 13.2/13.4 - Grace Periods have seemingly been ignored; 20.5 - photographs do not show the car parked; 22.1/22.2 - not allowing the Defendant to appeal; 22.12 - the Claimant refused the Defendant’s appeal, and refused to give out a Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) code for an independent appeal; 22.3 - the Defendant was not provided photographic evidence upon multiple requests

7.1 The Defendant would also like to reiterate the point that no proof of any parking infraction involving the vehicle in question was shown to the Defendant until a Subject Access Request was sent, over a year after the issue date - to the Defendant, it seemed like a scam: harassment from Debt Collection companies and threats of Court regarding a completely unknown event. Multiple requests for proof were requested, as well as multiple requests for an appeal. All were ignored and/or refused

8.The Claimant has failed the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and so the defendant is not liable under the POFA 2012

8.1 The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not followed the correct procedures outlined in the POFA 2012 by identifying who the driver of the vehicle was and therefore the Defendant, as keeper, is not liable for the charge

8.2 In the alternative, POFA 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. 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 in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters

9. The Defendant hopes that the presiding Judge will see this gross and unfair abuse of process and may consider using the court’s case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition

10. The POC also attempts to claim for an additional £60.00 which is not explained or calculated, which could even be an attempt at double recovery. These costs are not permitted under CPR 27.14

For the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such witness costs for attendance at trial as are permissible pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Le_Kirk

Multiple requests for proof were requested, as well as multiple requests for an appeal. Both were ignored and/or refused

Should be: -

Multiple requests for proof were requested, as well as multiple requests for an appeal. All were ignored and/or refused

ggwp

Ah good spot Le_Kirk, this is now updated. Thanks for reading it through

ggwp

Hiya. I'm going to be submitting this tonight, but I had one last idea. Would it be worth putting a point 11.. something like

11. The Defendant would also like to point out that it is the will of Parliament that these scammers are put out of business. BW Legal is one company specifically mentioned in the House of Commons, where Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November. The Defendant hopes this strengthens the point about how unfairly the Defendant, and many other members of the public, have been treated and harassed by unreasonable parking claims.