BW Legal Claim - Have a valid ticket

Paulinsuffolk

Hi all , advice on a defence needed please:


A few years ago we parked in a Britannia Parking car park when stopping for a meal. We bought a ticket for the amount of time needed but we didn't enter the full car registration, only part of it.



We then received a PCN from Britannia parking. We replied with a letter saying we had a ticket and sent a photocopy of the ticket which we had lucky kept. They then responded to say that they can see the valid ticket on the system but due to an 'operator error' they have incurred a cost from issuing the PCN which can be resolved by paying a discounted PCN of £20 which covers admin fees only. We ignored this refusing to agree that we should pay what is essentially an 'invoice' for their admin fees when we are not sending them an invoice for ours.



We then went through POPLA to dispute an unfair PCN, but they favoured on their side due to the 'clear signage of instructions'.



In the following couple of years after we received , and ignored, multiple dept collection letters where the PCN cost went up and down and then finally the BW legal letters and phone calls started coming in , all of which we ignored.



During this time of phone call harassment from BW legal my wife's mother was slowly dying of cancer. This prompted stress levels to raise quite high and we ended up writing a letter to BW legal which basically said "We have a valid ticket, as a gesture of goodwill and to put an end to the harassment, heres a cheque for the £20 for the admin. Do not contact us ever again unless it is to meet in court." - I think we may regret having written that letter ?



Anyway - now we have a County court claim form, we plan to disagree with the claim but wondered if anyone had any advice on the defence we should write please? - any help much appreciated


thanks,
Paul

Fruitcake

You need to start by reading the guide to court written by a poster called bargepole that you will find in post 2 of the NEWBIES.

Start by doing the AoS, but put absolutely nothing in the defence box, which will give you more time to concentrate on your defence.

Please contact your MP about this unregulated scam. Post 1 of the NEWBIES has a lot of information regarding this and what our MPs think.

If by operator error they mean they have made a mistake which has cost them money, that's their problem.

The_Deep

I think that, if they did take this to court, they would crash and burn. Judges are not fools and know a scam when they see one.

If it does get to court I would suggest that you lodge a counter-claim to get that £20 back, and claim for unreasonable behaviour costs. Also, complain to your MP as it is the will of Parliament that these scammers, (very often former clampers), 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.

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

Paulinsuffolk wrote: »

Anyway - now we have a County court claim form, we plan to disagree with the claim but wondered if anyone had any advice on the defence we should write please? - any help much appreciated


thanks,
Paul

Go and join BWLegal in court and with your proof, enjoy watching a judge whoop them and claim your costs against them.

DO READ UP ON THE REMARKABLY STUPID BWLEGAL
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5672664/bwlegal-the-list-of-failures-growing

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

Paulinsuffolk

yes its from from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton issue date is 9th jan,



why do you ask ?
thanks

Le_Kirk

Paulinsuffolk wrote: »

why do you ask? thanks

Because KeithP will be back later with your deadlines for doing AOS and filing defence.

nosferatu1001

Which you can calculate yourself - once you do the AOS, today if not already done and ONLINE and nothing elser, you have 33 days from date of issue for the court to RECEIVE your defence, whcih you WILL email.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th January, you have until Monday 28th 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 have until 4pm on Monday 11th February 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks 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.

Paulinsuffolk

Thanks so much KeithP,


AoS is completed as suggested.



So - my defence email , almost completely copied and pasted from another defence found on this forum, reads like this:




1. Any alleged breach of contract was entirely de minimis, as parking was fully paid for. The Claimant is fully aware that parking was correctly and completely paid for.
2.1. The Defendant paid for parking but entered only part of the registration number, instead of the full registration number of the car.
2.2. Fortunately, she has kept the ticket proving the payment and this was already shown to the Claimant by the Defendant in an appeal. This proved futile.
2.3. Given the fact that this Claimant is an International Parking Community ('the IPC') AOS member, it is not surprising the appeal was outright rejected because it is reported in the public domain that the IPC attracted AOS membership away from the rival ATA, by allegedly promising an 80% 'appeal win rate' in favour of operators. The Defendant has since discovered the conflict of interests behind the Trade Body and the so-called 'IAS' was exposed by MPs in the second reading of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, proposed legislation that has unanimous cross-party support in order to stamp out rogue 'tickets' such as this one.
2.4. The Claimant is indisputably aware that they have no legitimate interest in pursuing the parking charge under these circumstances, but it is seemingly intent on a meritless, intimidating claim to try to recover what amounts to an unconscionable penalty. The facts of this case are fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

3. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

4. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK). Vehicle Control Services Ltd do not use compliant NTKs, failed to serve one and cannot hold a registered keeper liable.

5. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information'. This Code confirms that it applies to ANPR systems, and that the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the British Parking Association AOS are required to comply fully with the DPA, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to:

a) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and
b) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and
c) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR at all times/days across the site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine shoppers and taking into account the prevailing conditions at the site on any given day), and
iv) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data would be used, and
v) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the Data Protection Act (DPA). At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for a Subject Access Request, what that is, nor informed of the legal right to obtain all relevant data held, and This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations under the DPA.

6. The Claimant states there was a breach of contract yet even if there was a purported contract between the driver and the Claimant, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (the failure to comply with points #5 i - v above, as part of the legal obligations that must be communicated up front and/or undertaken by a consumer-facing service provider, some of which were required even before commencing any use of ANPR at all)

7. Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under that contract, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced.

8. The Defendant wishes the Court to take note of the serious distress and alarm caused to the Defendant and their family, as a direct result of the unwarranted and aggressive harassment by letter after letter from different collection agencies, despite the fact there can be no 'keeper liability' out with the POFA 2012, and the Claimant is already aware from the appeal that the Defendant keeper was not the driver.


9. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant!!!8217;s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.







is this ok / all relevant ?
thanks again
Paul

Coupon-mad

the Claimant is already aware from the appeal that the Defendant keeper was not the driver.

That needs to be stated near the start!

And qualify/explain why you say 'the Defendant paid for parking but' (i.e. The Defendant was a passenger in the car and paid for parking, but...).

Is the Defendant the registered keeper of the car, and was just a passenger?