NCP and BWlegal Claim form

ParaXis_Bangerz

So, after many months of threatening letters which i (stupidly) chose to completely ignore due to older posts telling others to do so, I have finally had a Claim form come through. Issue date being 26th feb. I know I need to start writing a defence, but I don't particularly know where to start. I've read the newbies thread and couldn't find a template for anything like a short stay.


The driver entered an NCP car park at just gone 22:00 and left just under 13 minutes later. This was registered on the ANPR cameras which the driver had no idea they had (because they couldn't see s**t all in the dark). the driver also imagined much like allll the other car parks in Ipswich, that after 10PM parking would be free but apparently not.


Anyways, does anybody have a link to a good defence i should use relating to grace periods, anpr cameras being the only evidence, time of day etc? I'm 17 years old so as you can imagine I don't exactly have a lot of knowledge on parking laws or claim forms, witness statements etc. It's all a bit daunting. Many thanks for your help!

Fruitcake

Start by reading the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in post 2 of the NEWBIES.

This takes you step by step from the LBC to the court date.

Start by acknowledging service but put absolutely nothing, not even a full stop, in the defence box.

You will then have about 28 days to construct your defence.

In addition, complain to the landowner, the BPA, and the DVLA for the PPC's failure to apply grace periods of which there are two of ten minutes each in the BPA CoP. Send the scammers a copy of your complaint.

You should also complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

ShakeItOff

Welcome!

And yes, start by thoroughly reading Post 2 of the NEWBIES thread. It has a load of information in it, and you need to read it carefully.

With the defences (draft defences in there by Bargepole), you will see that there are common themes - signage, contractual issues, authority to claim etc etc. You will almost certainly want to use these in your defence.

If you haven't done so already, send a Subject Access Request to the PPC and DVLA. Template is in the NEWBIES thread (Legal Beagles link).

KeithP

ParaXis_Bangerz wrote: »

I have finally had a Claim form come through. Issue date being 26th feb.

I'm going to assume that the Claim Form came from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton. Please confirm.


With a Claim Issue Date of 26th February, you have until Monday 18th March 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. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four 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.

ParaXis_Bangerz

Thanks for the help guys

KeithP wrote: »

I'm going to assume that the Claim Form came from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton. Please confirm.

You assume correctly^
I have also done the A.O.S online with the help of the dropbox from post #2



I'm going on holiday on the 5th April and turn 18 on the 4th, so having a deadline of the 1st is a bit of stress. Maybe it'll all turn out to be an april fools joke :rotfl:


I better start writing a defence. I'll keep this thread posted with updates on it, but for the meantime, can anybody reccomend one of the examples to use as a base defence from the newbies thread? Saves me reading through them all to find the one most similar.

I'm going to focus on grace period, time of day, ANPR accuracy and of course include the 'one size fits all' arguments like 'signage, contractual issues, authority to claim etc' as ShakeItOff kindly suggested.


Thanks guys

The_Deep

Complain to your MP.

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 become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter .

Umkomaas

BRITANNIA or NCP / BWL CASES

As you will see from the first few pages of the forum, there is an onslaught by BWL on behalf of Britannia or NCP (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 or NCP 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.

ROBOCLAIMS - HOW BWL OPERATE

You might find it useful to understand how BWL operate - as I have surmised from the hundreds of different threads I've read involving BWL.

Other than the auto acknowledgements and template letters, you will get nothing sensible from BWL - they are dealing with literally hundreds of thousands of unpaid parking charges and are spewing out various threatening letters, using a conveyor belt approach to go through a computer controlled process towards a LBC, and a MCOL Claim - and it is really only at the final stages, as a court hearing becomes a possibility, that there's any real human intervention.

You need to understand that you're not dealing with an old fashioned firm of solicitors, just progressing from a quill and ink operation, BWL are industrial harvesters of debt, using the equivalent of massive combine harvesters to do their work. This is what their website tells you:

A multi-award winning law firm specialising in volume collections, across both regulated and unregulated sectors, who are dual regulated through the FCA and SRA.

We employ around 265 people at our Leeds based office which in turn makes us the largest privately owned debt collection law firm in the UK.

ParaXis_Bangerz

Hey guys, update


This is my first attempt of a defence. I found one posted on here a while back, think it might've been the newbies forum. I have adapted it to my situation, but please any advice is good advice right now. This is not the finished product so tell me anything you find.
If theres any points you can think of adding, here are the specifics of the case:

Time of ticket was 10PM


ANPR cameras registered the vehicle entering and exiting the car park in the space of approx* 13 minutes. (*i've misplaced the original PCN letter. I'll look for it when im home)


The vehicle was never parked, and was picking up a friend. Engine never turned off and driver never left the vehicle. They simply went into the car park as the road is in the centre of town and theres nowhere else to stop in that vicinity (i know thats not an excuse for it, but that''s why the driver was in there in the first place).


occured on 31/08/19 and the claim form is dated 26/02/19. AOS is done and I think i have till the 1st april to finish this.



Right without further adieu,







IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxx

BETWEEN:

National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)

-and-

Mr xxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at xxxxxx, xxxxxx 31/08/2018

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

1.2. The Claimant has spent near to 6 months harassing the Defendant with ever increasing and intimidating demands pursuing this baseless charge, sending debt collector letters and causing the Defendant and their family significant distress, despite having no basis to charge the original £100 and despite knowing the time registered on ANPR technology was within a reasonable time to be counted as a ‘grace period’ in relation to the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice.

2. The allegation appears to be based on a parking charge notice ('PCN') that was issued due to ANPR cameras registering the defendant’s vehicle entering and leaving the car park in the space of near 13 minutes, breaching the mandatory 'grace period'. The Defendant denies that, to his knowledge, the car was ever parked at all. The driver never left the vehicle and the vehicle itself was never turned off, Therefore no contract was agreed to by the driver, and that the ‘grace period’ still applies.

3.The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect an unconscionable£100, rather than the few pounds tariff. The fact is, this PCN was issued in breach of the Claimant's Trade Body Code of Practice ('CoP') on 'Grace Periods'.


4. At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the British Parking Association’s code of practice, 13.2 and 13.4, where it states:-
“…[FONT=&quot]You must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]period must be a minimum of 10 minutes”[/FONT]


4.1. The Defendant has found a BPA article published in 2013 by Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, who, despite encouraging a ''war on the non-compliant motorist'' was honoured by the BPA for his outstanding contribution to parking with a Lifetime Achievement Award.


4.1.1. Mr Reynolds' article had this to say about grace periods, which shows that the Defendant was not (in the BPA Trade Body's view) 'a non-compliant motorist':
“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

5. 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 entered, or breached, any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6.Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them, especially with no 'grace period' mentioned. Any reasonably circumspect driver would be entitled to rely upon the BPA's interpretation and not expect to be penalised for the time taken to enter and exit the car park.

7. In any case, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it had sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it had the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation in its own name on the material date. The Claimant appears to be a contractor on an agent/principal basis operating under a bare licence to erect signs and collect monies from the machines, and no doubt, to issue PCNs - but 'on behalf of' the landowner, which would give them no authority or standing.



7.1. Even if the Claimant was authorised to issue PCNs in their own right, it is denied that they could do so unfairly in a grace period and outwith the scope of the BPA CoP, and denied that the limited landowner contract gave this Claimant the express legal standing to form contracts and litigate in their own name.

8. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.



8.1. These have been variously described as a 'BW Legal instructions fee' (in the pre-action exchange of letters) and/or a 'debt collection charge' (not part of any terms on signage and cannot be added, not least because it was never expended). Suddenly in the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £242.04. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

8.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

8.2.1. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real 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.




Mr xxxxxx

Signed: …………………….
Dated: 11/03/19

The_Deep

Complain here about the solicitor trying to scam you

https://sra.org.uk/home/home.page

and complain to your MP about the PPC

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 become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has cleared Parliament and hopefully, this will become law shortly.

Coupon-mad

That's a good defence; good research.

I would just add here:

The driver never left the vehicle and the vehicle itself was never turned off, because the driver was merely picking up a passenger and did not take up space in a bay or park at all. Therefore no contract was agreed to by the driver, and that the ‘grace period’ still applies.

ParaXis_Bangerz

Thanks for the advice, I've added it to the defence.


I've also sent a SAR to NCP and informed BWlegal that I have done so- this provides me with two possible outcomes-


Either they reply quickly and I can add specifics to the defence
OR
They don't reply in time for the due date, and I will state this fact in my defence as a clear lack of cooperation from the claimant.


Win win :T


I'll keep the thread posted