NCP BW Legal claim form

upsetcactus123

Hi
I was recently contacted by trace debt about a pcn from may this year. From what I remember it was an anpr car park. I didn't have a PCN on my windscreen and I don't recall ever being contacted be NCP. My first knowledge of this incident was from trace debt. I wasn't really familiar with the area and from what I remember I had an onset of pain from a crohns disease flare up and I urgently needed to use the bathroom and and due to the nature of the situation I parked there as a result. I'm not sure how long I was gone. but I left, not thinking anything of it.
After researching the company I ignored their emails and It was then passed over to BW legal and I received a letter before claim.
I responded to this via email

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your Letter of Claim, dated (xxx) 2018.

Im afraid your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client is presumably relying upon. As such I must ask you to provide further information as detailed below, before I can decide how to proceed.

As of 1st October 2017 a new protocol has been applicable to debt claims, known as the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. I presume that your client, National Car Parks Ltd, is aware of this? Since court proceedings have not yet been issued, this new protocol clearly applies and must therefore be complied with, by all parties.

Your Letter of Claim lacks specificity, and as such I believe it breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all the currently outstanding documents and information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to inform the court of any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol, and furthermore to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations.

As solicitors, authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, who specialise in legal recovery, you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction which was applicable before 1st October 2017, and of the new Protocol which applies thereafter. Your client VCS should also be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. The objectives of pre-action conduct and protocols are to assist parties in: understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it; to make decisions about how to proceed; to try to settle the issues without court proceedings; to consider a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution to assist with settlement; to support the efficient management of those proceedings; and to reduce the costs of resolving the dispute. I therefore find it wholly inappropriate that a firm of solicitors who specialise in legal recovery are sending a consumer (myself) a vague and unevidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. As such, I require VCS to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. The evidence they have that confirms that I was, as they claim, the driver at the time of the alleged contravention (which I dispute)
3. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
4. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? Please provide the names of the parties to it along with a copy of that contract.
5. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
6. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which authority to bring the claim is asserted, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1: !!!8220;establishing yourself as the creditor.!!!8221;
7. a map showing where any signs were displayed, including those upon entering the business park where the alleged contravention took place
8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)

As your client has previously stated in prior correspondence, they are not relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, and therefore cannot claim keeper liability. As such, I can only assume they are pursuing me as the driver, and I would like to see their evidence of who was driving the vehicle. As PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified in 2015 with regards to keeper liability: there is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver, and operators should never suggest anything of the sort.

If your client does not provide me with the above information, then I will ask the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the new Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings in the meantime.

Yours faithfully, (etc etc)

they replied to the email acknowledging this and i awaited a response. I was going to decide whether to pay it or fight it once I'd evaluated their evidence but the next correspondence from them was a claim form.
I have not admitted to being the driver and have since filed the acknowledgement of service and must build a defence. Im relatively new to this sort of thing so advice would be appreciated.
Thank you

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Was it sent by from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton or from somewhere else?

Post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread is the best place to start looking for guidance on creating a Defence. There are several examples in there.

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.

upsetcactus123

Issue date is the 21 december.
County court business centre

Redx

post the exact POC details and the breakdown of charges and total claimed in a reply

KeithP

upsetcactus123 wrote: »

Issue date is the 21 december.
County court business centre

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st December, you have until Wednesday 9th January 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 the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Wednesday 23rd January 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a whole 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 "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 the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

upsetcactus123

Im worried on what legal argument I actually have as its more mitigating circumstances.

upsetcactus123

The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £243.76 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant in respect of a parking charge notice etc etc
Amount Claimed £168.76
Court Fee £50
Legal Representative's cost £50
The defendant was allowed 28 days from the PCN date to pay the PCN, but failed to do so.
Despite demand having been made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of £0.04 from 05/18 to 12/18 being an amount of £8.76
The Claimants claim includes £60 costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions

Redx

the original charge was either £100 or less, not £168.76

I suspect they have hidden their fees in that figure and added extra costs on that they are not entitled to claim

there are several threads on here that discuss this double recovery aspect

I suggest you check the original pcn and NTK etc, plus the signage on the site, for the true initial charge

the defence is about legal arguments, not mitigation

beamerguy

upsetcactus123

Yes .... you are being scammed by a ROGUE TRADER

YOU NOT OWE £168.76

BWLegal has been reported many times to the SRA which is supposed to be a solicitors authority ?

THE SRA HAS FAILED

Therefore in the New Year, such a scam must be reported to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, The Rt Hon David Gauke MP

The SRA must be investigated as to why they allow such companies to scam the general public

upsetcactus123

I see. So do I have any legal argument to build a defence? Or should I just pay it? I don’t have the original PCN. I don’t recall ever receiving one before I was contacted by trace debt although I may be wrong as I have recently changed address. Is there any way to check?