3D Parking / BW Legal County court claim

bib_bob_euroslap

Hope I’m ok posting this.
Received a Letter of Claim 25th Feb, response or payment required by 31 March.

Have sent SAR request to 3D Parking as per the temlplate in the sticky thread (If it’s relevant, no privacy policy on 3D Parking’s website).

Just about to write response to letter of claim to BW Legal and looking for clarity - sticky thread mentions this is just a simple letter to state sar has been sent, but I noted a few threads with more detailed responses and wondering what’s appropriate?

Do I state the charge is still disputed until response to my original protests are received, and do I need to ask for any further evidence from BW, e.g. who are they perusing, evidence etc.

Feel like this is going to go on and on, but hope someone can help me out.

Thanks.

beamerguy

With the letter of claim, did BWLegal prove their claim to you ?
Pictures etc and proof of the amount claimed

BWLEGAL ADD ON A FAKE £60 ?
In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. >>>> thanks to bargepole

bib_bob_euroslap

There’s nothing in the BW letter of claim by the way of evidence etc. It only states what the contravention was and date, location, vehicle details and they’ve been instructed by 3D to commence legal action.

Not sure on the extra £60 you mention. They’re claiming for £160 total, which is £100 for the parking charge + £60 initial legal costs, and is what the debt collectors were trying to claim for too. Doesn’t look like anything added on by BW themselves.

The_Deep

Doesn’t look like anything added on by BW themselves.

That is precisely what it looks like to me. BW legal are trying to scam you, complain to the SRA.

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

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

But you will know from reading some of the shedloads of other BW Legal threads that they can't add £60.

Do I state the charge is still disputed until response to my original protests are received, and do I need to ask for any further evidence from BW, e.g. who are they perusing, evidence etc.

If you like, yes, but don't go doing one of those awful long 'rebuttals'.

beamerguy

bib_bob_euroslap wrote: »

Not sure on the extra £60 you mention. They’re claiming for £160 total, which is £100 for the parking charge + £60 initial legal costs, and is what the debt collectors were trying to claim for too. Doesn’t look like anything added on by BW themselves.

That's IT ..... The great BWL fake scam claim = £60

bib_bob_euroslap

Thanks for the replies. But, just to be sure - this extra £60 was originally referenced by 3D parking and the debt people, Trace, not by BW Legal.
Does that make a difference?
And, do I dispute this in my response to the Letter of Claim.

Apologies if I’ve missed this in a post somewhere but wasn’t something I knew to lookout/search for, if there is link to a post I can refer to I’d appreciate it.

Coupon-mad

just to be sure - this extra £60 was originally referenced by 3D parking and the debt people, Trace, not by BW Legal.
Does that make a difference?

No. You need to read at least 20 BW Legal threads, I think it should be a rule on this board that posters need to read lots of other threads like theirs first. No links needed, please go back 20 pages reading every single claim/BW legal thread you see.

The £60 fake UNRECOVERABLE 'debt collector cost' add-on is covered in EVERY defence example and has been discussed in depth in lots of threads.

do I dispute this in my response to the Letter of Claim.

Yes if you like.

BW Legal will pretend it's a real cost though, because that's what they do.

bib_bob_euroslap

Hi all, it’s finally arrived, the county court claim.
Issue date 5th July
Application of Service has been done.
Defence by 7th August.

Would appreciate any feedback on my drafted defence below. Points I think are relevant to pursue include
Signage not clear at entry to ‘car park’,
Poorly positioned signage in the car park
Notice to keeper arrived late
No evidence that vehicle was parked longer than time allowed to purchase ticket
Claiming for over inflated costs
Insufficient information given during pre action stage

Many thanks.

Defence:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

3D PARKING LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date on an area of unmarked road where it was previously possible to park without restriction. The driver was not made aware of the change of requirement to display a pay and display ticket.

3. The Particulars of Claim do not state in what capacity the Defendant is being pursued, be it the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle, or indeed any description of what the ‘parking contravention’ may have been. This lack of information indicates the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

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.

5. The claimants signage is not positioned clearly nor are the terms displayed in a large enough font to be easily read from a passing vehicle entering the car park. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. The Claimant has provided no evidence the vehicle was parked longer than the assumed grace period permitted in order to purchase a parking ticket, the machines for which are located some 250 meters from where the vehicle was parked.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

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 includes an additional £73.56, for 'contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest' which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) 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). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time & with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

15. 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: The defendant quotes the words of the District Judges ''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...''

16. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

17. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

18. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

bib_bob_euroslap

bib_bob_euroslap wrote: »

12. 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.

With reference to the above, taken from one of the excellent examples on this forum, in my case the county claim form does have a named person, so should this sentence be removed?

KeithP

bib_bob_euroslap wrote: »

Hi all, it’s finally arrived, the county court claim.
Issue date 5th July
Application of Service has been done.
Defence by 7th August.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th July, you had until Wednesday 24th July - that was yesterday - to do the Acknowledgement of Service. Did you do the AoS by then? Please Confirm.

Having done the AoS in a timely manner, as you say, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 7th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the 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 "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep 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.