BW LEGAL COURT CLAIM x 2 HELP

lime561

Hello

I recently started receiving constant debt collection letters, calls, emails from BW legal for 2 separate PCN notices for 'parking without a valid permit or displaying a valid pay and display. Both were issued in 2016 from a university car park that at the time had no pay and display machines, no barriers and very limited sineage. Due to the age of these PCN's, I have no recollection of receiving them and am fairly certain I did not receive the notice to keepers. I subsequently ignored these BW Legal letters, and since I live away from my postal address most of the time, have come back to 2 x letter of claims from the Northampton county court.

I completed both my acknowledgement of service on the 29/01 & sent a SAR to Britannia which they denied stating I asked for 'additional information', refused to send me any photos and asked me to pay £10 to receive it. I then sent my SAR request to BW legal, which they have not responded too. I have contacted the University to complain and see if they can assist and they haven't been able to do anything except provide me with the information that the carparks were only updated in 2017 with pay and display machines and barriers.

I am not sure what to write my defence on, nor when I need to write it by, or if I should just contact BW legal and arrange a payment plan? I also do not know what to do in the next steps of obtaining my SAR, as Britannia have obviously refused it. Any help or direction of what to do next would be greatly appreciated, as this is causing me alot of stress and anxiety.

Umkomaas

I completed both my acknowledgement of service on the 29/01 & sent a SAR to Britannia which they denied stating I asked for 'additional information', refused to send me any photos and asked me to pay £10 to receive it.

Report that to the ICO. Send them a copy of your SAR, so they can see what you asked for.

I then sent my SAR request to BW legal, which they have not responded too.

They have a month in which to do so.

I am not sure what to write my defence on, nor when I need to write it by

There are examples in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2. Look for those written by legally qualified and forum regular, bargepole.

You have 33 days from the date of issue shown on each of your Claim Forms from the CCBC.

BRITANNIA/BWL CASES

As you will see from the first few pages of the forum, there is an onslaught by BWL on behalf of Britannia (and a few other hitherto court-shy PPCs) which is being conducted on an industrial scale - roboclaims.

You are caught in a one-way traffic flow where you must fight or pay - there is no longer a safe 'do nothing' option.

1. Pay now, it costs you exactly what they are currently demanding.
2. Ignore it, a 'judgment in default' will inevitably follow for at least what they want - maybe with even more costs added; continue to ignore that, you're getting a CCJ with credit trashing consequences for 6 years.
3. Defend, yet lose in court, the cost award is likely to be noticeably less than their current demand ~£175.
4. Defend, and win in court, you owe them nothing and you could claim up to £95 for half a day's pay/loss of annual leave, plus travel costs @45p per mile, plus your parking cost for the day.

Your least costly option has to be 3, with hopefully a win as per 4.

But BWL/Britannia cannot physically take everyone to court, and there is evidence to show that with a well constructed defence, BWL can come along with a reduced 'offer to settle', which if refused, becomes a discontinuation. We can't give you guarantees on that, but as you have little choice other than to defend (if you don't want to pay), you need to give this your very best shot.

Whether you have a good defendable case to argue, you will need to read other similar cases at the defence (or beyond) stage and learn from those.

Coupon-mad

I am not sure what to write my defence on, nor when I need to write it by,

Welcome!

Please read the NEWBIES thread post #2 (NOT THE FIRST POST ABOUT APPEALS) where I beg people not to post until they can show us their defence. You will know how to do that, what it looks like (copy one by bargepole) and when by, when you read the sticky thread!

I wish we could stop people posting before they've read the sticky properly, which very simply shows you concise defences to copy... I can see you've read it to know to do a SAR, but how did you miss the defence examples?

refused to send me any photos and asked me to pay £10 to receive it.

Complain to the ICO online - again an easy step, done in minutes once you look at their site and click on 'complaint/concerns about how a company has used my data' or similar then follow what it says and upload the email that demands £10 and looks as though they are refusing a SAR (it doesn't quite say that but it looks like it and I bet people are paying £10 for data).

KeithP

What are the Issue Dates on each of your Claim Forms?

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

lime561

The issue date was the 25th of January, from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton and the MCOL was received on the 31st January, so i think i have until Friday 22nd Jan at 4pm to file my defence. I have started to draft my defence, which I will post below, however I was waiting to receive the SAR which i filed on the 29/01. I still haven't received anything, but I know they have until 26/02 to respond.

Umkomaas

lime561 wrote: »

The issue date was the 25th of January, from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton and the MCOL was received on the 31st January, so i think i have until Friday 22nd Jan at 4pm to file my defence. I have started to draft my defence, which I will post below, however I was waiting to receive the SAR which i filed on the 29/01. I still haven't received anything, but I know they have until 26/02 to respond.

You can't wait for the return of your SAR if your defence deadline is before any SAR deadline date. Get on with your defence.

The issue date was the 25th of January, from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton and the MCOL was received on the 31st January, so i think i have until Friday 22nd Jan at 4pm to file my defence.

I hope you mean Friday 22nd February, otherwise I'd be checking my credit rating!

KeithP

lime561 wrote: »

The issue date was the 25th of January, from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton and the MCOL was received on the 31st January, so i think i have until Friday 22nd Jan at 4pm to file my defence.

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th January, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th February 2019 to file your Defence.

A few more days than you thought.

Loads of time to produce a 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.

lime561

Umkomass -Yes I obviously meant 22nd Feb...

KeithP- Thankyou that is really helpful knowing i have more time.

This is my defence so far ...

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx xxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the dates mentioned, in a marked bay at Bournemouth University Talbot campus. The claim states that the driver of the vehicle ‘Failed to display a valid permit or pay and display ticket’ however there was no given opportunity to purchase a pay and display ticket.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, 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.

3. The level of liability of the Defendant is dependent on proof that from the claimant there was an offer, acceptance of that offer and consideration which would be the payment of a fee to park on the land. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that there was a reasonable, visible opportunity to purchase a pay and display ticket.

4. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner, Bournemouth University. Britannia therefore cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from Bournemouth University to Britannia Parking, that Britannia Parking has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, and that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.



5. Furthermore, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be able to bind any reasonable person reading them. The signs are small, placed at an awkward angle and minimal for such a large car park.


6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the claimant says they did. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.


8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim(s) includes an additional £110, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The Claimants are put to strict proof that they have incurred, and can lawfully add an extra £110 to each PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance.

9. It is believed that this Claimant has not adhered to the BPA Code of Practice and is put to strict proof of full compliance. This Claimant has used methods of what can only be described as harassment in the form of daily and repeated communication attempts through the form of emails, texts, and call in order to reclaim this sum.

10. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.



I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad

I'd be adding a point specifying that;

In 2016, this Claimant failed to use the statutory wording from Schedule 4 of the POFA, and thus there is no cause of action to allow pursuit of a registered keeper, when the driver(s) on each occasion have not been identified. Further, there is no applicable law that can cause a keeper to be presumed to have been the driver, as was confirmed by expert parking law Barrister and PATAS/POPLA Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, in the POPLA Annual Report 2015. This Claimant being a BPA member and subject to POPLA adjudications, will be very familiar with this fact.

And say this near the start where you talk about the facts:

Both were issued in 2016 from a university car park that at the time had no pay and display machines, no barriers and very limited sineage.

lime561

Update - BW legal have sent me a letter stating 'notice of pending county court judgement' stating I have failed to respond with any proposals for payment or the reasons why the debt is disputed'. This is despite me completing MCOL's AOS for both claims?... Additionally Britannia have sent my SAR to my old address. BW legal have sent all correspondence to my current address so I'm wondering if i can work this to my advantage saying I haven't received it within the time frame, due to their own fault or something?

lime561

This is my updated defence - is this okay to submit??
1) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.



2) The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx xxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the dates mentioned, in a marked bay at Bournemouth University Talbot campus. The claim states that the driver of the vehicle ‘Failed to display a valid permit or pay and display ticket’ however there was no given opportunity to purchase a pay and display ticket.

3) Due to the sparseness of the particulars, 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.

4) In 2016, this Claimant failed to use the statutory wording from Schedule 4 of the POFA, and thus there is no cause of action to allow pursuit of a registered keeper, when the driver(s) on each occasion have not been identified. Further, there is no applicable law that can cause a keeper to be presumed to have been the driver, as was confirmed by expert parking law Barrister and PATAS/POPLA Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, in the POPLA Annual Report 2015. This Claimant being a BPA member and subject to POPLA adjudications, will be very familiar with this fact.

5) The level of liability of the Defendant is dependent on proof that from the claimant there was an offer, acceptance of that offer and consideration which would be the payment of a fee to park on the land. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that there was a reasonable, visible opportunity to purchase a pay and display ticket.

6) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner, Bournemouth University. Britannia therefore cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from Bournemouth University to Britannia Parking, that Britannia Parking has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, and that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.



7) Furthermore, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner, which would be able to bind any reasonable person reading them. The signs are small, placed at an awkward angle and minimal for such a large car park.


8) The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver did not see or accept the sum the claimant states on the contract. Therefore, it is denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.


9) The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim(s) include an additional £110, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The Claimants are put to strict proof that they have incurred, and can lawfully add an extra £110 to each PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance.

10) It is believed that this Claimant has not adhered to the BPA Code of Practice and is put to strict proof of full compliance. This Claimant has used methods of what can only be described as harassment in the form of daily and repeated communication attempts through the form of emails, texts, and call in order to reclaim this sum.

11) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.!