Bw legal letter of claim

Jb93

Does this defence look better than the one in post #7 ?

Coupon-mad

Yes, as long as the Claimant is shown as KBT CORNWALL LTD (not BW Legal).

I would also mention Jopson v Homeguard as you will want to use that in your later WS & evidence. Search the forum for defence Jopson and copy a point about it.

Jb93

Hi guys,

I submitted my defence on 27/05/19 and came up on Mcol that it was received on the 28/05/19. I also received a letter to say it was received. That is the last I have heard of it, the letter did say that once the claimant received my defence they would then have 28 days to respond or the claim would be stayed. Are they likely to wait to the last minute to file theirs and then I will receive directions questionnaire ?

Quentin

Be patient

Their time to respond to the court has not been passed yet

No-one here knows their administration procedure

Jb93

Ok thanks just wasn’t sure if anyone else experienced this and if it looked likely would be stayed. Il carry on waiting

KeithP

Yes, everyone experiences this, but not everyone writes about it.

From time to time I write something like this:

The Claimant has 28 days after receiving your Defence from the CCBC to consider their options.

No-one knows when the CCBC sent your Defence to the Claimant.

No-one knows when the Claimant is going to respond to the CCBC.

No-one knows what sort of backlog there might be in the CCBC which delays them processing the Claimant's response and sending you a DQ to complete.

Patience is a virtue.

Jb93

Hi after some help,

I revived my court date a few weeks back and have till 24/9 to submit my WS and evidence.
I was unaware that a permit was required and I was also loading/ unloading and not parked I’ve been searching a reading posts for my ws. But I’m struggling to find anything on loading/unloading can anyone point me in the right direction ?

Also I have been round the the car park to take some pictures for evidence of the sign and poor lighting etc. And there is now no sign on display what so ever is this likely to work in my favour or not as I have no proof as to say that the sign to small etc
Thanks I’m advance

Umkomaas

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf

Jb93

Hi guys just finished off my witness’s statement which I will hand deliver towards end of this week. please could someone glance over this and tell me how it’s looks and if there is anything missing ?


In the matter of

parking company (Claimant)
v
******** (Defendant)

Claim no:

Witness statement of Mr xxx, Defendant

1. I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents to which I will refer.

2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

3. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

4. The defendant, entered the land behind 1-5 Wesley street Camborne at around 17:10pm on 16/01/2018. Found a spot to stop briefly while unloading some things to a resident of the area.

5. Upon filing a SAR the defendant received photographs of the vehicle, Pj55gnu. The first photo was taken at 17:14pm and the final photo taken at 17:17pm this only provides evidence that the vehicle was stopped for 3 minutes while the defendant was unloading.

6. It is denied that clear signage was present at the time of contravention that a permit was required at the location and upon filing for a SAR, ARMTRAC SECURTY failed to provide any evidence of the sign or any sign stating permits were required for parking.
7. SAR Photographs Appended as evidence. E.1.1-1.5 page 4

8. Furthermore it is denied that:
a. There was any agreement between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.
b. There was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
c. The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
d. It is further denied that the signage is clearly displayed.

9. The defendant returned to 1-5 Wesley Street Camborne on 22nd August 2019 to collect evidence and there was no presence of any sign to notify any persons that a permit is required or that a PPC in control of the land.
10. Photo appended as evidence E.2 page 4

11. Costs on the claim are disproportionate and disingenuous

12. 6.1 CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
a. only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
b. resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

13. 6.2. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

14. 6.3. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

15. 6.4 Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

16. 6.5 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

17. 6.6 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) at 4(5) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

18. 6.7 Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
19. ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''c
20. SCHEDULE 4 OF POFA APPENDED AS EVIDENCE: E.7 page 5

21. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.
22. COSTS SCHEDULE APPENDED ON PAGE 6
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signature of Defendant:


Name:
Date:


Thanks

ShakeItOff

Just a couple of thoughts:

4 - you've switched to Defendant, and you don't need a full stop after the date (and likewise, a capitalised F).
5 - expand on SAR (Subject Access Request, then you can abbreviate after), and you've left your reg number in - you might want to remove it from your post. I would also reference the pages in your bundle that show the photographs (make it easy for the judge).
6 - I would also add in that C has also failed to provide proof of this, and reference the email that you received in response to the LOC (shows them in a bad light).
7 - This isn't actually a point in itself. Reference the photographs/other evidence throughout the document.
8 - Apologies if I have missed this, but have you admitted to being the driver at any point, and could it have reasonably been someone else? The judge may well ask you if you were the driver, and you really shouldn't be lying in court. I would reference that you have asked for this information, but C has not been forthcoming.
9 - PPC - be specific, C.
10 & 11 - Again, weave it in. It isn't a point.
12 - Add in some of the cases to back up your point, and append them if you can. You've got some of the detail in your lower points already.
(generally, you also have some doubling up of numbering - assuming you've taken this from your defence?)
19 - You're not ordering anything, this is your witness statement, and your story about what happened on the day.

Append any cases that you can in the evidence.

You might find it helpful to put the points you want to raise - "Background" (you are the registered keeper, what happened before now to get to this point), "Keeper Liability" (why C can't hold you liable - reference the fact that they don't even plan to use POFA, and therefore they must pursue the driver, so what evidence do they have that you're the driver), "Inadequate signage" (good points raised here, and definitely use photographs, theirs and yours, in your evidence), "Authority to bring the claim" (i.e. are they even able to bring a claim against you, and what for?), "Costs associated with the charge" (abuse of process, inflated claims).

I found it helpful to put it together as above, so that I was also clear on where we were when it came to discussing it in court. You don't have to do it that way, but I think it is helpful to group issues together.

And, within reason, don't shy away from calling the C out - they will use language that attempts to discredit you, don't be afraid of doing the same.