We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Bw Legal Northampton Business centre
Options
El_Tortuga
Posts: 15 Forumite
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for reading and any input going forward. I received the following when I went to see my old neighbour on Tuesday. Three letters.
1 x Notice of county court claim issued 05/02 from BW
1 x Notice of pending county court judgement dated 04/03
1 x County Court Business Centre dated 05/02.
I’ve since moved and ashamed to say I don’t really know what reason I’m getting this ticket. I believe it’s from when I went to the cinema but can’t be sure of all the details and why I am getting these letters. It’s really stressful and affecting my mental health as they’re saying I’m going to get a CCJ.
I’ve read the newbies page and come up with the following defence. If you wouldn’t mind giving me some feedback that would be grand. I don’t know if it’s too late but I’m going to try anyway.
I’ve already acknowledged receipt of the ticket on the Gov page. That was Wednesday. Not sure if I’m too late but in BW’s letter they stated I have until 17/03 to acknowledge or I will receive a CCJ.
Thanks in advance for your time and input.
Defence:
1.It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXX when it was parked at XXXXXXXX. The PCN stated the contravention as ‘Parked longer than maximum allowed time of 2 hours in a 24 hour period’.
1.1.The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
3.The Defendant or any driver of the vehicle, deny entering into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
6.The Claim relates to an alleged debt, an unexpected postal Parking Charge Notice ('PCN'), arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Every man cinema car park on .......Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant £100 'parking charge'. Also the Claim includes Statutory Interest of £5.68, £60 contractual coasts, £50 Legal representative’s costs and £25 Court fee. In total £240.68
7.The Car Park is provided for the customers of ‘on-site facilities’: Every man cinema.
7.1 The Defendant and authorised drivers of the vehicle in question has previously on several occasions has visited XXXXXX Cinema and the XXXXX Restaurant and fail to remember details of their visits due to their quantity and time passed.
8.Upon the investigation by the Defendant, the allegation appears to be that the vehicle overstayed and contravened the ‘maximum allowed time of 2 hours in 24 hour period’ based on images by ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit to the site. There is no information provided how long the vehicle have overstayed the parking period for and whether the time was reasonable enough to justify a £100 fine.
8.1 After visiting the Car Park after the Claim has been received, the Defendant has discovered that all the signs has been changed to a ‘maximum of 3 hours in any 24 hour period’ making it impossible to discover whether signs were displayed clearly and according with regulations at the time the incident occurred.
8.3.The Defendant finds it unfair and unreasonable to issue such an extortionate penalty retrospectively when current Terms and Condition has been changed clearly in favour of visitors as a result of inconvenience.
9.The additional uncertainty is caused by a Tripadviser response from XXXXXXX Sales and Marketing Executive at XXXXXX on XX of July 2016 to an unsatisfied customer of their car park, saying “We have extended the length of stay from two to three hours...” . The discrepancy in dates is vital as Defendant has no access to terms and conditions of the car park and evidence to previous signage and any forms of contractual agreement.
10.It is believed that the increase in free time allowance was encouraged by the land owner to satisfy the needs of their customers as 2 hours was simply not sufficient enough time to drive around the car park, park, place an order and use the facilities.
11.It is contended that current signage fails to alert visitors or provide with information that if customers require longer stay time at the cinema, they must inform any member of staff and their registration number will be added to their electronic system. In previous times the Defendant has visited the above facilities such information has never been asked for or given. The staff at XXXXXXX encourage their clients to enjoy their stay as long as clients wish for for no extra charge and has currently a system in place where an iPad is used to login the car registration. Such facilities were not offered to the Defendant or any authorised drivers of the vehicle in the Claim at any previous times visiting the facilities.
12. The Defendant has contacted the manager of the XXXXXXX via email to identify when changes has been made and on what grounds. The Defendant also visited the site and spoke to a manager who was surprised at an unfair penalty and sent an email to a higher authority to investigate. However new staff could not give a certain answer on when signs were changed and do believe that the reason for increasing the time allowance was based on insufficient time given to clients to enjoy their stay at XXXXXX facilities.
No locus standi
13.The Defendant strongly believes after communication with the XXXXXXX Staff that the landowner has no legitimate interest in pursuing their clients for overstaying while using their facilities.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.
14.The Defendant denies agreeing to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract as such amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.
Data Protection Act and BPA Code of Practice breach
15.Current signs at the XXXXXX car park indicate ‘This site operates(ANPR) through CCTV’
16.The Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach.
16.1 The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.
16.2 The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:
i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and
ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and
iii) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.
Unlawful conduct/data use and breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
17.In a similar instance of DPA failure by excessive and inappropriate use of ANPR cameras - confirmed on this Claimant's Trade Body (BPA) website in a 2013 article urging its members to comply - Hertfordshire Constabulary was issued with an enforcement notice. The force were ordered to stop processing people's information via ANPR until they could comply. The Information Commissioner ruled that the collection of the information was specifically illegal; breaching principle one of the DPA.
18.The Court's attention will be drawn to the case of Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes). Whilst not wholly aligned to the issues in this case, it is on all fours with the above point, because of the principle it extols that no one should profit from their unlawful conduct. Paragraph 20 of the Transcript of that case states: ''It is common ground that, whatever costs may be recoverable by a litigant in respect of professional services such as those provided by Tenon to the appellant, they cannot include the cost of any activities which are unlawful''. Paragraph 28 continues - ''...cannot on any view recover the cost of activities performed by Tenon which it was not lawful for them to perform.''
18.1 Further, in RTA (Business Consultants) Limited v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015), at paragraph 34 the Judge discusses the relevance of the public law principle going back well over 200 years, that no man should profit from his crime; it is submitted that this is particularly relevant in this action. The Judge cited Lord Mansfield CJ to explain that: ''The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If [...] the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff.''
19.Even if there was a purported contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (due to non-compliance with the ICO requirements at the outset, before enforcement started using ANPR systems at this site).
19.1 Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under that contract, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced.
19.2 To add weight, the Defendant also cites from ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338. Whilst the facts of that case differ, due to the arguments between the two commercial parties, the Judge's comments at paragraph 29 of the Transcript of Somerfield are of importance, where he discussed ParkingEye's misleading letters to consumers, whereby they had committed the tort of deceit. : ''At common law, historically, a distinction has been drawn between cases where the guilty party intended from the time of entering the contract unlawfully and cases where the intention to perform unlawfully was only made subsequently''. Laws LJ, in Somerfield, concluded that ParkingEye did not set out to deceive consumers before they signed the contract with Somerfield, so the contract was upheld in that case.
19.2.1. Differently in this case, it is asserted that the Claimant did deliberately or negligently break the DPA. Being a BPA member with access to a wealth of ICO and DVLA-led data compliance information, relevant articles, compliance events and specific parking & DPA related legal advice for members, and given that this Claimant has its own in-house Legal Team and solicitors, it cannot justify nor plead ignorance to excuse their conduct in failing to meet their legal obligations both before enforcement and by way of regular evaluations to avoid just this sort of data abuse.
19.2.2. At paragraphs 65-74 of the Somerfield transcript, Laws LJ set out three factors which need to be considered in a defence of illegality. The Defendant submits that the key issues in this action are that:
(i) the commission of an illegal wrong being present at the time of entering the contract means that the Claimant will not be able to enforce the contract.
(ii) the illegality is central to the contract and is not merely a minor aspect, thus it should not be held to be too remote so as to render the contract enforceable.
(iii) the nature of the illegality: in this case it was a breach of legal obligations regarding data, and not merely a civil tort as in Somerfield. The gravity of the illegality is therefore far greater.
20.The Defendant avers that a breach of the DPA and failure to comply with ICO rules regarding data captured by ANPR, also transgresses the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Unconscionable and unrecoverable inflation of the 'parking charge'
21.In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Legal Costs of £50.
21.1. 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 £240.68. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
21.2. 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.
21.2.1 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.
22.Also the added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. In Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the sum was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to already include a significant sum in profit; being a pre-set sum dressed up as a fee or charge agreed in contract. This was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime, and it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, and would have failed.
22.1. Similarly, in Somerfield a £75 parking charge was not held to be a penalty but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.
23.The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Name
Signature
Date
Thanks for reading and any input going forward. I received the following when I went to see my old neighbour on Tuesday. Three letters.
1 x Notice of county court claim issued 05/02 from BW
1 x Notice of pending county court judgement dated 04/03
1 x County Court Business Centre dated 05/02.
I’ve since moved and ashamed to say I don’t really know what reason I’m getting this ticket. I believe it’s from when I went to the cinema but can’t be sure of all the details and why I am getting these letters. It’s really stressful and affecting my mental health as they’re saying I’m going to get a CCJ.
I’ve read the newbies page and come up with the following defence. If you wouldn’t mind giving me some feedback that would be grand. I don’t know if it’s too late but I’m going to try anyway.
I’ve already acknowledged receipt of the ticket on the Gov page. That was Wednesday. Not sure if I’m too late but in BW’s letter they stated I have until 17/03 to acknowledge or I will receive a CCJ.
Thanks in advance for your time and input.
Defence:
1.It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXX when it was parked at XXXXXXXX. The PCN stated the contravention as ‘Parked longer than maximum allowed time of 2 hours in a 24 hour period’.
1.1.The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
3.The Defendant or any driver of the vehicle, deny entering into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
6.The Claim relates to an alleged debt, an unexpected postal Parking Charge Notice ('PCN'), arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Every man cinema car park on .......Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant £100 'parking charge'. Also the Claim includes Statutory Interest of £5.68, £60 contractual coasts, £50 Legal representative’s costs and £25 Court fee. In total £240.68
7.The Car Park is provided for the customers of ‘on-site facilities’: Every man cinema.
7.1 The Defendant and authorised drivers of the vehicle in question has previously on several occasions has visited XXXXXX Cinema and the XXXXX Restaurant and fail to remember details of their visits due to their quantity and time passed.
8.Upon the investigation by the Defendant, the allegation appears to be that the vehicle overstayed and contravened the ‘maximum allowed time of 2 hours in 24 hour period’ based on images by ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit to the site. There is no information provided how long the vehicle have overstayed the parking period for and whether the time was reasonable enough to justify a £100 fine.
8.1 After visiting the Car Park after the Claim has been received, the Defendant has discovered that all the signs has been changed to a ‘maximum of 3 hours in any 24 hour period’ making it impossible to discover whether signs were displayed clearly and according with regulations at the time the incident occurred.
8.3.The Defendant finds it unfair and unreasonable to issue such an extortionate penalty retrospectively when current Terms and Condition has been changed clearly in favour of visitors as a result of inconvenience.
9.The additional uncertainty is caused by a Tripadviser response from XXXXXXX Sales and Marketing Executive at XXXXXX on XX of July 2016 to an unsatisfied customer of their car park, saying “We have extended the length of stay from two to three hours...” . The discrepancy in dates is vital as Defendant has no access to terms and conditions of the car park and evidence to previous signage and any forms of contractual agreement.
10.It is believed that the increase in free time allowance was encouraged by the land owner to satisfy the needs of their customers as 2 hours was simply not sufficient enough time to drive around the car park, park, place an order and use the facilities.
11.It is contended that current signage fails to alert visitors or provide with information that if customers require longer stay time at the cinema, they must inform any member of staff and their registration number will be added to their electronic system. In previous times the Defendant has visited the above facilities such information has never been asked for or given. The staff at XXXXXXX encourage their clients to enjoy their stay as long as clients wish for for no extra charge and has currently a system in place where an iPad is used to login the car registration. Such facilities were not offered to the Defendant or any authorised drivers of the vehicle in the Claim at any previous times visiting the facilities.
12. The Defendant has contacted the manager of the XXXXXXX via email to identify when changes has been made and on what grounds. The Defendant also visited the site and spoke to a manager who was surprised at an unfair penalty and sent an email to a higher authority to investigate. However new staff could not give a certain answer on when signs were changed and do believe that the reason for increasing the time allowance was based on insufficient time given to clients to enjoy their stay at XXXXXX facilities.
No locus standi
13.The Defendant strongly believes after communication with the XXXXXXX Staff that the landowner has no legitimate interest in pursuing their clients for overstaying while using their facilities.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.
14.The Defendant denies agreeing to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract as such amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.
Data Protection Act and BPA Code of Practice breach
15.Current signs at the XXXXXX car park indicate ‘This site operates(ANPR) through CCTV’
16.The Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach.
16.1 The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.
16.2 The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:
i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and
ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and
iii) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.
Unlawful conduct/data use and breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
17.In a similar instance of DPA failure by excessive and inappropriate use of ANPR cameras - confirmed on this Claimant's Trade Body (BPA) website in a 2013 article urging its members to comply - Hertfordshire Constabulary was issued with an enforcement notice. The force were ordered to stop processing people's information via ANPR until they could comply. The Information Commissioner ruled that the collection of the information was specifically illegal; breaching principle one of the DPA.
18.The Court's attention will be drawn to the case of Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes). Whilst not wholly aligned to the issues in this case, it is on all fours with the above point, because of the principle it extols that no one should profit from their unlawful conduct. Paragraph 20 of the Transcript of that case states: ''It is common ground that, whatever costs may be recoverable by a litigant in respect of professional services such as those provided by Tenon to the appellant, they cannot include the cost of any activities which are unlawful''. Paragraph 28 continues - ''...cannot on any view recover the cost of activities performed by Tenon which it was not lawful for them to perform.''
18.1 Further, in RTA (Business Consultants) Limited v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015), at paragraph 34 the Judge discusses the relevance of the public law principle going back well over 200 years, that no man should profit from his crime; it is submitted that this is particularly relevant in this action. The Judge cited Lord Mansfield CJ to explain that: ''The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If [...] the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff.''
19.Even if there was a purported contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (due to non-compliance with the ICO requirements at the outset, before enforcement started using ANPR systems at this site).
19.1 Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under that contract, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced.
19.2 To add weight, the Defendant also cites from ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338. Whilst the facts of that case differ, due to the arguments between the two commercial parties, the Judge's comments at paragraph 29 of the Transcript of Somerfield are of importance, where he discussed ParkingEye's misleading letters to consumers, whereby they had committed the tort of deceit. : ''At common law, historically, a distinction has been drawn between cases where the guilty party intended from the time of entering the contract unlawfully and cases where the intention to perform unlawfully was only made subsequently''. Laws LJ, in Somerfield, concluded that ParkingEye did not set out to deceive consumers before they signed the contract with Somerfield, so the contract was upheld in that case.
19.2.1. Differently in this case, it is asserted that the Claimant did deliberately or negligently break the DPA. Being a BPA member with access to a wealth of ICO and DVLA-led data compliance information, relevant articles, compliance events and specific parking & DPA related legal advice for members, and given that this Claimant has its own in-house Legal Team and solicitors, it cannot justify nor plead ignorance to excuse their conduct in failing to meet their legal obligations both before enforcement and by way of regular evaluations to avoid just this sort of data abuse.
19.2.2. At paragraphs 65-74 of the Somerfield transcript, Laws LJ set out three factors which need to be considered in a defence of illegality. The Defendant submits that the key issues in this action are that:
(i) the commission of an illegal wrong being present at the time of entering the contract means that the Claimant will not be able to enforce the contract.
(ii) the illegality is central to the contract and is not merely a minor aspect, thus it should not be held to be too remote so as to render the contract enforceable.
(iii) the nature of the illegality: in this case it was a breach of legal obligations regarding data, and not merely a civil tort as in Somerfield. The gravity of the illegality is therefore far greater.
20.The Defendant avers that a breach of the DPA and failure to comply with ICO rules regarding data captured by ANPR, also transgresses the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Unconscionable and unrecoverable inflation of the 'parking charge'
21.In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Legal Costs of £50.
21.1. 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 £240.68. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
21.2. 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.
21.2.1 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.
22.Also the added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. In Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the sum was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to already include a significant sum in profit; being a pre-set sum dressed up as a fee or charge agreed in contract. This was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime, and it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, and would have failed.
22.1. Similarly, in Somerfield a £75 parking charge was not held to be a penalty but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.
23.The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Name
Signature
Date
0
Comments
-
Who is the 'Notice of pending CCJ' from, the Court or BW lying legal?
I think if its from the Court your well past defence stage!0 -
Hi and welcome.El_Tortuga wrote: »Thanks for reading and any input going forward. I received the following when I went to see my old neighbour on Tuesday. Three letters.
1 x Notice of county court claim issued 05/02 from BW
1 x Notice of pending county court judgement dated 04/03
1 x County Court Business Centre dated 05/02.
I’ve already acknowledged receipt of the ticket on the Gov page. That was Wednesday. Not sure if I’m too late but in BW’s letter they stated I have until 17/03 to acknowledge or I will receive a CCJ.
Thanks in advance for your time and input.
You can ignore the first of those three items.
Who sent you the second item? Is that also from BWL?
If so, you can ignore that too.
Is the third item on that list a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton? If so, what is the Issue Date on that Claim Form?
The passing if information clearly is very important, otherwise we're all guessing.0 -
No it’s from BW legal. The other document is just a Claim form.0
-
Hi, the issue date is 05/02. That is from the county cour business centre.0
-
OK, so you have received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre.El_Tortuga wrote: »Hi, the issue date is 05/02. That is from the county cour business centre.
With a Claim Issue Date of 5th February, you had until Monday 25th February to do the Acknowledgement of Service.
You tell us:
Does that mean you did the Acknowledgement of Service via MCOL on Wednesday 13th March?I’ve already acknowledged receipt of the ticket on the Gov page. That was Wednesday.
You are very lucky if that AoS was accepted.
Does the MCOL case history show that accepted?
Anyway, you need to file a Defence at the earliest opportunity.
The good news is that nothing bad will happen over the weekend.
You need to file a Defence sometime over this weekend as below.
When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:-
Print your Defence.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- 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'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
- 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.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
I would have thought that if the AOS wasn't done on time, the BWL automated system would have applied for a judgment in default faster than a rat down a drainpipe.
My bet would be that the CCJ has been issued, but you won't be able to find out now until Monday, so as to cover yourself in case I'm wrong, you will need to follow KeithP's advice and get a defence in this weekend. But it might be all too late.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Yes, I think you are right Umkomaas.
I think that if a Default Judgment is made while the case is still with the CCBC, then MCOL case history should show that.
El Tortuga, perhaps the first thing you should do, before preparing a Defence, is to login to MCOL and check the case history.
Please post here the full list of entries.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards