Bw legal letter of claim

beamerguy

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.

Interesting to see how a judge handles this
Be it signed or not, it is a statement of truth released by BWLegal
and that includes ABUSE OF Process and fake figures

A good WS

Jb93

Ideal thanks I will make amendments to this tomorrow and the repost it.

I was the driver but I haven’t actually admitted it. I’m guessing I’m better of going down the path as being the driver than now trying to claim other wise ?

I did become slightly stuck in regards to signage as a picture of the sign wasn’t provided in the SAR and being over 18months ago when I returned to retrieve evidence the sign is gone. So I have no way of proving it wasn’t adequate. Is this likely to work in my favour ?

Coupon-mad

I did become slightly stuck in regards to signage as a picture of the sign wasn’t provided in the SAR and being over 18months ago when I returned to retrieve evidence the sign is gone. So I have no way of proving it wasn’t adequate. Is this likely to work in my favour

Have a point in your WS saying exactly that, and add that this means the alleged contract (i.e. the terms on the sign) has never been provided to you and to finally show a picture of it at this eleventh hour will put you at a disadvantage and will be an ambush (use that word) but that you believe the signage was inadequate and incapable of binding a driver.

ShakeItOff

I would say that the responsibility is on C to prove the driver if you haven't admitted.

With the POC, double check who has signed it off. Google their name, and you should get a bit on the Solicitors Regulation Authority if they are qualified. My current claim, as an example, has been signed of by a solicitor (not a paralegal), so I couldn't argue the first point.

Jb93

Glad I just checked this as upon doing a search it has been signed of by a supervising solicitor so that would have made me look stupid in court! Will be amending this evening a will re post !

Thanks for pointing that out !

beamerguy

Jb93 wrote: »

Glad I just checked this as upon doing a search it has been signed of by a supervising solicitor so that would have made me look stupid in court! Will be amending this evening a will re post !

Thanks for pointing that out !

The fact is that if this supervising solicitor, whoever she or he might be, has signed a statement of truth and they are saying that their claim is correct ? ... but it's not because POFA2012, the law, states

This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4

The supervising solicitor has lied to the court and is holding the law in contempt and abusing the court by providing fake information

Jb93

Thank you all for feedback ! I have made amendments to my WS. Here is is below;


In the matter of

parking company (Claimant) I
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. I, 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. I received a letter of claim from BW Legal on 11th January 2019, claiming for a contravention on the 16th January 2018, nearly a year on from the supposed contravention. This was very vague and didn’t explain any details of the claim or any evidence to back up the claim. Especially as KBT CORNWALL LTD is requesting a balance of £160.
a. Letter of claim appended as evidence E1 page 3

6. I sent an email to BW Legal on 24/01/2019 requesting all details of the claim and all evidence that has lead them to believe a Claim can be made against me. I received an email in response failing provide any information I required and that further correspondence had been sent in the post.
a. Emails appended as evidence E2 page 4

7. I received a letter from BW Legal shortly after the email conversation, which still failed to provide any information I had requested, that they were to still continue with the claim.
a. Letter appended as evidence E3 page 5

8. Upon filing a SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST the defendant received photographs of the vehicle, XXXXX. 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.
a. SAR Photographs appended as evidence E4-E4.5 page 6

9. 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.
a. SAR appended as evidence E5 page 7,8,9.


10. Furthermore it is denied that:
a. There was any agreement between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the KBT CORNWALL LTD.
b. There was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
c. KBT CORNWALL LTD 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.

11. I 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 KBT CORNWALL LTD T/A Armtrac Security in control of the land, this means the alleged contract (i.e. the terms on the sign) has never been provided to myself, and to finally show a picture of it at this eleventh hour will put me at a disadvantage and will be an ambush but that i believe the signage was inadequate and incapable of binding myself or any driver. Photo appended as evidence E.6 page 10

12. Costs on the claim are disproportionate and disingenuous, 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. 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. 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. 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.






16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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

19. This being said the supervising solicitor has lied to the court and is holding the law in contempt and abusing the court by providing fake information. By signing a statement of truth and stating their claim is correct which it is not under POFA2012, the law


20. SCHEDULE 4 OF POFA APPENDED AS EVIDENCE: E.7 page 11

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.

21. COSTS SCHEDULE APPENDED ON PAGE 12

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signature of Defendant:


Name:
Date:

I am after some advice for appending evidence where I’m referring to cases, do I include the whole case or just sections that are relevant to what I’m arguing ?

Thanks in advance

Jb93

If someone can please cast their eye over this amended WS I’m be very grateful hoping to get it to the court by end of week

Coupon-mad

Don't put things in capitals, it looks like shouting:

SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

And if this is about a brief stop for loading, say what was bring loaded/unloaded and append Jopson v Homeguard and quote the Judge in that persuasive appeal case.

Search the forum for Jopson Witness Statement loading and copy one.

Remove all mention of KBT Cornwall and Armtrac (it's confusing because you mean the same firm each time) and change them all to 'the Claimant'.

Remove #10 c.

KBT CORNWALL LTD has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Jb93

Ok thanks I will make those amendments.
Other than that look does it look like it’s good to go ?
Also with the cases I’m quoting if i have included the detail do I need to append evidence also ?