BW Legal - Claim Form from CCBC

Redx

take anything from 2016 with a pinch of salt as there may be stuff that is no longer relevant


anything from 2018 and possibly the latter half of 2017 is good fodder, especially anything by BARGEPOLE and LOC123 or where people like Iamemanresu or Nosferatu or coupon-mad have been involved, plus any cases that the defendant won

WelshBoy77

Hello

After looking around on the forum, posts started by TPSTwats, Diego Fuego, Bargepole and Snellosaurus / Coupon Mad dealt with claims that are fairly similar to the claim being made by the Claimant. Sections of the defences by TPSTwats, Diego Fuego, Bargepole and Snellosaurus / Coupon Mad have been used as the basis of the planned defence.

Any reference to the Beavis case and any other cases have been removed to avoid just copying and pasting directly for someone else’s defence without having a full understanding of the point being made.

I can not remember 100% if the car parking machine was working, I pretty sure it was not working. I have left this out of my defence as I am waiting on the response by the car parking company to the SAR (mid December).

Advice would be greatly appreciated on the following …
• To include the car park machine was not working,
• The below draft defence,


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

XXXXX (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________

DEFENCE STATEMENT

1. I am the Defendant, XXXX, DOB XX/YY/ZZZZ, and reside at XXXXXX and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

Preliminary matters:

3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed, the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response.

5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCS) have identified over 1,000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

6. The vehicle was parked in the evening after sunset and the car park was very poorly lit so the driver could not read any signage.

7. If the court believes the signs could have been read after sunset, any ‘charge’ or terms on the signage were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

8. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60 contractual costs pursuant to Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Terms and conditions which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

9. In the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50', artificially hiking the sum to over £200. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous. Such costs are not permitted (CPR 27.14)

10. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

11. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

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.

P.S. Redx I have just come online and I will review post made by those people you mentioned (Thank you).

The_Deep

Complain to your MP. they are trying to scam you

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

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, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

WelshBoy77

I have written to my MP, thank you.

I would appreciate any comments and advice on my draft defence.

WelshBoy77

After reading a recent post by Bargepole I have amended my defence. Tomorrow (Tuesday) evening I will submit the defence (following guidance from Keith P) a day before the deadline.

I am fairly happy with the defence and would appreciate any comments.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Xxxx (Claimant)

-and-

Xxxx (Defendant)


DEFENCE STATEMENT

1. I am the Defendant, xxx, DOB xxx, and reside at xxx and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

Preliminary matters:

3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 para. 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 para. 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed, the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. However, it is denied that the Defendant, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. I have asked questions in the form of a Subject Access Request (SAR) but have not received any response.

5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCS) have identified over 1,000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

6. At the time of submitting this defence the claimant has not responded to Subject Access Request (SAR) that was sent on Xth December 2018. If they have not replied to the SAR (by Xth January) they have failed to follow their legal obligation under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). By not complying to the “SAR” I believe they are demonstrating unprofessional behaviour and denying myself the opportunity to fully defend the claim.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

7. The vehicle was parked in the evening after sunset and the car park was dark due to the inadequately lighting facilities so the driver could not read any signage.

8. 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. 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.

10. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60 contractual costs pursuant to Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Terms and conditions which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

11. The Protection of Freedoms Act (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 £70. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

12. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

13. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

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.

KeithP

DEFENCE STATEMENT

Should be DEFENCE - drop the word STATEMENT.

DOB xxx, and reside at xxx

No need for that.

Coupon-mad

Seems to cover the bases, but do remove #5 as you've used an old template. That point isn't helpful and adds nothing.

I also think that most of #4 needs to be removed, as it distracts the reader from the facts of the defence lower down. No need for such wordy stuff.

And why in your first post here did you say the machine as not working:

the car parking machine was not working and the car park was poorly lit.

...yet that isn't mentioned in your defence?

It's not 'Defence Statement' (you have been looking at old ones)! Heading should be:

DEFENCE

1. I am the Defendant, xxx, DOB xxx, and reside at xxx

You do not need any of that, and not your address at all.

Why not look at bargepole's example defences in the NEWBIES thread, much shorter and with proper headings and very little preamble/preliminaries?

WelshBoy77

Hello Keith P

Thank you for your comments, I have made both those changes.

Hello Coupon Mad

Thank you for your comments.

• Point 5 has been removed,
• I think point 4 should now read “The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 para. 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed, the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4.”
• I will add in the bit about the machine not working
• I did not want copy directly Bargepole defence (kind of feels like cheating) and I will look at their posts on Newbies.

bargepole

WelshBoy77 wrote: »

… I did not want copy directly Bargepole defence (kind of feels like cheating) and I will look at their posts on Newbies.

I have no problem with you copying any of my stuff directly.

All I need is your email address, so that I can send over my invoice.

Coupon-mad

In case you didn't realise, bargepole is joking...!