Bw legal court defence

Omoplata

Hi everyone
Have a claim form from Northampton County Court
Claimant is TPS & BW Legal
P of C do not actually specify alleged contravention. The actual wording is
The claimants claim is for the sum of £203.70 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention which occurred on ( date deleted) at 12:32:43 in the car park at ( location deleted) in relation to a ( vehicle details deleted)
The defendant was allowed 28 days from the PCN issue date to pay 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 £4.70 from 08/04/2018 to 28/11/2018 being an amount of £4.70
The claimant also claims £54 contractual costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions.

Here is my defence
In the county court
Claim number ( deleted)
Between TPS( claimant) and ( name deleted) defendant
1: Defendant denies claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or at all
2: The facts are that the vehicle ( details deleted) of which the defendant is the registered keeper was parked at ( location deleted) on the material date
3: The Particulars of Claim does not state that the defendant was either the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. This indicates that the claimant has failed to identify a cause of action. Furthermore, the claimant has failed to comply with CPR 16.4 because they have not included a concise statement of the facts on which the claim relies, Civil Practice Direction 16, paras 7.3 to 7.5, also the particulars of claim do not meet requirements of CPD 16, 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached
4: Due to the sparseness of the Particulars of Claim, 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, entered into any contractual agreement with the claimant, whether express, implied or by conduct
5: Further, and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimants signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They give no clear definition of the boundary of the premises either in writing or by way of a map
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 PCNs and to pursue payment by means of litigation
7: The POFA 2012, Sch 4 at Sec 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the registered keeper is the charge stated on the Notice To Keeper - in this case £70
The claim is for £203.70 which it states includes interest at £4.70 and £54 in contractual costs as set out in terms and conditions. there is no calculation or explanation given for the additional sum being claimed. This appears to be a blatant attempt at double recovery.Furthermore the particulars of claim states the £54 contractual costs are set out in their terms and conditions. These are not on any of their displayed signs. The claimant is put to strict proof to justify these overstated costs
8: It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such the defendant is keeping note of wasted time and costs in dealing with this matter
9: In summary it is the defendants position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit and has no 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
Signed & dated

Thank you for reading - just wanted to know if the defence is sufficient argument against their Pof C. As they fail to mention offence ( leaving site whilst vehicle remained parked) do I need to argue against offence?

I have photos of their signs which show neither boundaries to site nor any added costs that may follow
I will be sending defence tomorrow
Many thanks in advance

The_Deep

They are claiming more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. They know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

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

I am sure they do not condone this conduct. The writing is on the wall for these scammers.

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.

beamerguy

The claimant also claims £54 contractual costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions

DO THE SIGNS SHOW THAT ?????

Maybe they are hidden in small letters in the T&C's that could not
form a contract.

Can you go and take pictures of the signs that clearly shows

"£54 CONTRACTUAL COSTS"

Omoplata

The only sum mentioned on signs is “by failing to comply with above terms you agree to pay PCN of £70 (reduced to £40 if paid within 14 days)”
Nowhere else is there any reference to £54

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Did the Claim Form come from the Northampton County Court, or from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton?

Omoplata

Issue date was 29 Nov 2018
County court business centre
I filed acknowledgement of service on 2/12/2018 & have until 2/1/19 to submit defence

KeithP

Omoplata wrote: »

Issue date was 29 Nov 2018
County court business centre
I filed acknowledgement of service on 2/12/2018 & have until 2/1/19 to submit defence

Yes you have your dates worked out correctly.

Remember that your Defence must be filed by 4pm on Wednesday 2nd January.


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 keep 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.