UPDATED - County Court Business Centre + BW Legal - Looking for urgent advice

Dom_M

Hey

Firstly I have read the Newbies thread, as well as trawled through dozens or forums and YT videos and I am now lost in a mountain of conflicting advice and examples.

I’ve started a new thread in the hope someone can give me the layman’s term for the advice I need.

Summary;

• Contravention Date: 17/04/2018
• Issue Date of this Notice: 08/05/2018
• Issuer: Total Parking Solutions
• Passed on to: BW Legal
• Reason for PCN: Overstayed the allowed 180mins
• Registered Keeper was NOT the driver at the time
• BW Legal have begun phoning the registered keepers parents in an attempt to make contact – This number was not freely given
• No contact from the registered keeper or the driver has been made with TPS or BW Legal
• Location: Car park signage at the time was inadequate / car park in question is a local business centre / TPS no longer provide services to the car park, this has moved to Euro Parks who have since amended the signage to be clearer
• Received advice to ignore all previous letters, now sat here with a County Court Business Centre claim form
• Amount: Debt £70 / Interest £4.52 / Court Fees £25 / Solicitors Costs £104 – Total £203.52
• County Court Claim issue date: 29th November 2018
• Unsure if a LBC has been received or if the County Court claim form is an LBC?

As detailed above the driver parked in this car park and overstayed and nearly a month later the PCN was received, as stated above this was ignored (through bad advice).
8months later and several ignored letters I am sat looking at what appears to be a fake or very poorly presented County Court claim form as well as a letter from BW Legal informing me the letter was issued and is the start of legal proceedings.
I’ve notice some minor errors on the Court claim form;

• Make of Vehicle is incorrect although other details match ie License plate
• Cost break down on the claim form and BW Legal letter do not match (The total cost remains consistent)

My question is what do I do at this stage….

I assume step one would be to submit a AoS? Does this go to BW Legal or County Court?
Why has BW Legal asked me to contact THEM OR the County Court before the 19th Dec to resolve the issue? Surely at this point I should be dealing with the court?
Is BW Legal allowed to contact family members of the Registered Keeper?
At what stage should it be reveal and to whom that the registered keeper and the driver were not the same person?
I was told today a PCN can only be issued up to 14 days after the contravention, is this correct?
Why would the cost on the two forms differ? Is this normal or should I dig into this?
Should the registered keeper make any contact via phone or email with BW Legal or TPS at this point?
BW Legal have stated “We may enter a CCJ against you on or after 19th Dec 18 if you do not contact us or reply to the County court claim”, is this correct or a scare tactic? Understandable this has concerned the registered keeper as a CCJ would ruin them, they have insisted the ful £203.52 should be pain to BW Legal right away just in case.

As you can probably tell I am new to this site so hopefully I have covered everything….

Once again I would really appreciate any advice!
Thank you

Redx

neither, AOS goes to the CCBC in Northampton if the claim form was issued by them, the KEEPER creates a login to the GOV website and uses the MCOL ref to do the AOS online

this is covered in the BARGEPOLE walkthrough (please read it again) , there is even a step by step guide for this so surprised you have to ask, sorry to say

no county court is involved at this stage, so nothing to them and nothing to B W LEGAL either

B W LEGAL should only be contacting the defendant, the person named by the PPC as being the person responsible, nobody else, could be a DPA issue under the GDPR

the MCOL form is NOT an LBC

an LBC would have come from either TPS and/or B W LEGAL and is the warning about an impending court claim and gives 30 days notice and contains financial forms they want to be completed

your parents should complain to the SRA about being telephoned by B W LEGAL if they have nothing to do with it, plus they should complain to B W LEGAL and insist that their telephone number is deleted from their records using the GDPR to do so, possibly after THEY send B W LEGAL an SAR to get the proof that they will later require to be deleted (using the forget me rules - the right to be forgotten)

the SAR goes to the PPC involved , from the defendant , to TPS , to their DPO contact

the DEFENCE should state that the defendant is the keeper

the DEFENCE should state that the KEEPER was not the DRIVER (keep it simple)

no its not correct, a PCN is an invoice and can be issued anytime, usually within 6 months due to DVLA KADOE restrictions I believe

the PPC has 6 years to issue a court claim

extra costs are always dissected and objected to , the pcn charge and court costs are valid

only the SAR goes to the PPC, no other contact at this moment in time to B W LEGAL or anyone else other than the CCBC with your AOS and defence later on

a CCJ is only issued if this is not dealt with , and/or if you lose in court and fail to pay the judgment IN FULL within one month, the newbies thread tells you this, so study that thread closely, especially post #2, as we dont like to repeat ourselves

the CCJ is a threat they like to use, but wont happen if you do something about it and fight, plus pay up promptly if you lose, that way there is NO ccj


post your DATE OF ISSUE of the MCOL form, plus the full POC and costs breakdown on the MCOL below, but no personal details

The_Deep

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.

Castle

Redx wrote: »

no its not correct, a PCN is an invoice and can be issued anytime, usually within 6 months due to DVLA KADOE restrictions I believe

They have to apply for the RK's details within 6 months, (well 26 weeks actually per KADOE), but there's no time limit under KADOE for sending it out. (However, the BPA's Code states it must be sent out within 7 months of the parking event).

Redx

thank you for those clarifications

I suspect the OP is swamped with information and tap room lawyers who have heard about the 14 day rule and misinterpreted it (as usual)


to the OP, the 14 day rule is POFA2012 in order to try to make a keeper liable for the actions of the driver

if the PPC wishes to hold a keeper liable, they must follow the lawful rules laid down in POFA2012

ie:- to get the NTK to the keeper by day 15 and to have the POFA warning and wordings on that NTK (assuming there was no windscreen ticket)

if there WAS a windscreen ticket, the 14 day rule does not apply, whereas the 29 to 56 day rule DOES APPLY , meaning they can access the keeper details from the DVLA after one month and must get it to the KEEPER by day 56 after the event

if they fail POFA2012, they have an uphill struggle to try to prove that the keeper is liable, especially if the keeper wasnt the driver

any PPC that abides by POFA has an easier time holding a keeper to account, they dont even have to know or prove who was driving, the keeper could have been 5000 miles away or in hospital and it would not matter

not complying with POFA2012 means they may well fail, on a technicality against a keeper/defendant

KeithP

Dom_M wrote: »

County Court Claim issue date: 29th November 2018

My question is what do I do at this stage….

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th November, you have until Tuesday 18th December to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL].

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Wednesday 2nd January 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away, but they may be busy weeks. Loads of time to produce a good 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 "defended". 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 [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

Dom_M

Thank you all for the advice, I have submitted an AOS so I believe that means I have until the 2nd to submit a defence? Obviously I plan to do this sooner to avoid the Christmas delays.


Below is my defence at the moment, I will be honest it is partly a template.
I have tried to focus on two areas
1) the keeper was not the driver nor will the driver be identified
2) poor signage


Can I lease gets some feedback on this...




Statement of Defence

I am xxx, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a. The Claimant did not identify the driver
b. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
4. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence.
In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a course of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
e. Another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of Northampton County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
f. On the 19th August 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.!

5. I was not in receipt of a compliant “Letter Before Court Claim”, under the Practice Direction, meaning the Defendant could not compile a Formal Response. This is in direct contradiction with paragraph 7 of the particulars where the Claimant’s solicitor states ‘The Claimant has complied with the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims’ and the Defendant believes that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. The Defendant invites the Claimant to provide proof of their compliance.

6. Total Parking Solutions are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
7. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read. The signage was only the wrong side of the road for drivers entering the car parking making it nearly impossible for a driver to attempt to read the sign and not provide an obstruction to the car park entrance. The car park signage font is below the required sizing. Industry standard signs recommend a minimum height of 3 inches in a bold font to have any readable impact at 30 feet.
(g)In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA
c. The sign did not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the permit in the windscreen, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
d. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

8(a) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £70 as per the PCN issued on 08/08/2018. This appears to be an added cost with no apparent qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

9(a)No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £104 legal representative costs and £25 court fees.
c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £70 costs to pursue an alleged £70 debt.
d) Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
e) The Claimant described the charge of £104 "legal representative costs’’ not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
10. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
a. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £70 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.




Additional Is it worth me added in y defence the car park is now looked after by a different company who have put up clearer signage?


Thank you again!

Dom_M

I have finished preparing my defence which I intend to send off today, just need someone to proof read it first.


Today I received a second County Court letter for the same car park on a different date, would the process for defending this be the same as before?

Le_Kirk

See if you can get them both combined so as to "save the court time and expense". Search the forum for similar instances. I believe you need to contact the court and ask.

The_Deep

Please read the Solicitors' code of Practice here

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

and if these bottom feeding scammers have stepped one millimetre ouside of it complain like Friar Tuck to the SRA that ey their conduct is likely to bring the profeesion into disrepute.

Also complain to your MP

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.

Dom_M

Thank you


Should I send my defence in for the first claim (See above) and then send a second follow up defence for the second claim as well as the request the court merge the two claims ?