Parking Charge Limited & BW Legal

Jay_E

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Remove #2 and 2.1 ad 2.2 as they add nothing.QUOTE]


I completely missed so it's been included! Do you foresee it being a problem?

Quentin

Jay_E wrote: »

Defence updated and emailed across today is that ok or should I send a paper copy by post as well? The deadline for the court to receive it is the 7th August.
Also, should I send a copy to BW Legal?

Now you are dealing with a Court claim you should have the newbies FAQ thread bookmarked

Post #2 there covers Court claims right through to the hearing with walkthroughs showing you what to do and when

Your questions on sending the defence are all answered there

Jay_E

Quentin wrote: »

Now you are dealing with a Court claim you should have the newbies FAQ thread bookmarked

Post #2 there covers Court claims right through to the hearing with walkthroughs showing you what to do and when

Your questions on sending the defence are all answered there

I asked because there is conflicting advice. On a link from the NEWBIES thread it says to post it. On this thread (and others) an email address was given and I was advised to scan, sign and email across as a PDF (which I did).

KeithP

Jay_E wrote: »

On this thread (and others) an email address was given and I was advised to scan, sign and email across as a PDF (which I did).

That is good advice.

But I would say that.

Jay_E

*update* The defence was received by the court 05/08/2019. No communication since. Should the questionnaire mentioned in the Newbies thread have been received by now?

KeithP

Patience. The CCBC seem to be a bit busy at the moment.

They will get around to sending you a DQ, but if you wish, you can download one as suggested in item 8 on the list in post #46.

Hint: fill in the form online before downloading. It's neater.

Coupon-mad

Please can you show us the defence you submitted including the NCP green button wording, as there is a new poster looking for a similar defence.

nosferatu1001

BEfore the DQ is sent the C has to confirm they want to proceed - and they have 28 days to do so. Youre missing a step.

Jay_E

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Please can you show us the defence you submitted including the NCP green button wording, as there is a new poster looking for a similar defence.

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to
an alleged debt arising from a postal Parking Charge Notice, when parking at xxxxxxxxxxxx ANPR Car Park on 30/11/2018. Any breach is denied, and it is
further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant £100 'parking charge'.
2. The Particulars of Claim does not state that the Defendant was the registered keeper
and/or the driver of the vehicle(s).
2.1 The Parking Charge Notice states that the name and address of the driver is
unknown and as such are writing to the registered keeper of the vehicle.
2.2 These assertions indicate that 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.
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. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxxxx, of which the Defendant is the
registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at xxxxxxxxx. The vehicle entered the car park at 12:53:23. There was no option to
‘pay and display’. All parking was to be paid for via a payment website named “Whoosh”.
Due to trouble accessing the website and then having to register before making a
payment, a payment of £1.20 was made validating parking from 13:02 till 16:02. The
vehicle left the site at 16:07:29.
4.1 Given that the car park in question uses pay and display (online payment) alongside
ANPR. The contract in a PDT machine car park (unlike a free retail park) cannot possibly
begin upon driving in, not least because at that point the driver has no idea as to the
specifics of the terms and conditions of the contract until they consult the signs. Case
law NCP vs HM Revenue Customs (May 2019) paragraphs 18, 19 and 20. The offer and
acceptance takes place when the paying motorist inserts the coins & hits the green button (in the case of paying by online payment would be the point when the ‘pay now’
button was pressed).
5. The allegation appears to be based on a parking charge notice ('PCN') that was
prematurely issued just five minutes after expiry of paid-for time, breaching the
mandatory 'grace period'. Point 13.2 from the BPA CoP states: "If the parking location is
one where parking is normally permitted, 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 period must be a minimum of 10 minutes."
6. The allegation is that the vehicle was ‘parked without clearly displaying the required
valid pay and display ticket and no other cashless parking payments detected’ based on
images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an
image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of a contravention or failure to make
payment. Further, this contravention cannot have occurred, given the facts and
evidence.
6.1 As previously stated, payment was made via the “Whoosh” payment website.
7. The Defendant denies that the claimant are able to enforce any action whilst acting as
a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically
authorised by the landowner. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant
does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that
they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
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 'costs' of £60, which
the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
8.1. These have been variously described as ‘Initial Legal costs’ (in the pre-action
exchange of letters) and/or ‘Debt Recovery Costs’ (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 £244.76. 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 BW Legal 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. 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 £60, for which no
calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double
recovery.
10. 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.

beamerguy

#9

Your statement is meek about the £60 fake claim by BWLegal

Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

PLEASE READ POST #14 ON THIS THREAD BY COUPON-MAD and include the text