BW letter of claim defence help

didgeridoooo

Hi Meanie,



Those photos/dates sound very interesting. I would certainly let them know you didnt miss those details, as they may be hoping or waiting to see if you missed it. On the other hand, it might be an idea to keep quiet about it, and laugh about it in front of a judge!! Your call, probably sensible to raise it now, but more satisfying the other way around!


Forget about the byelaws thing. I researched that to the nth degree and it's definitely not covered by any byelaws so it doesnt apply to the "not relevant land" point.

meanie66

Thanks Didgeridoooo,

Shame the land isn't covered by byelaws, was really hoping it was.

I think the intention of the photos of the car park signs that were sent to me were for the intention of telling me they have adequate sinage and they should have been adhered to. They are from July 2015 and the PCN is from October 2015.

I was sent photos of the keepers car via the SAR from PP which are both in pitch darkness on entering and leaving the car park with only the headlights and number plate visible.
I wondered if I could build a defence on either of the points above.

I'll also look up your case later this evening to see how it's going.

didgeridoooo

Hiya, I am FAR from an expert here, but in my view neither of those two points are where you should focus. BWL will make plenty of other mistakes for you to focus on, POFA in particular, plus pre action protocol for debt claims. Thats where I am focussing anyway.

meanie66

didgeridoooo wrote: »

Hiya, I am FAR from an expert here, but in my view neither of those two points are where you should focus. BWL will make plenty of other mistakes for you to focus on, POFA in particular, plus pre action protocol for debt claims. Thats where I am focussing anyway.

Thank you!

Any help/advice is appreciated, my brain is feeling a little fried at the moment.

I have read so many different threads and still not sure what line of defence will be best in this case. Not sure if they have made any mistakes as far as POFA is concerned but will carry on reading to see if anything comes to light.

I'm not even sure I know what I'm looking for!::o

meanie66

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Your DD has a defence of the unlit signs (and if she wasn't the driver she has the POFA/not relevant land defence as I think this place falls within byelaws land).

Unlit signs are REALLY fundamental and the SAR should flush the photos out.
!

Hi Coupon-mad,

Just to add that the SAR has confirmed the photos taken of my daughters car in and out of the car park were in darkness apart from the headlights and number plate.

BWL's response to my template letter contains photos of PP car park signs and state they trust this now concludes any outstanding queries and failure to contact them within 14 days of their letter may lead to further collections activity, or further legal action.

Please can you advise if I should contact them further or just wait for their court letter?

Many thanks

didgeridoooo

I am going to be in court before you on similar case. I intend to question the validity of their signage photos, and raise a few other issues regarding the signage, most importantly the fact that the signs are written to represent "Maritime Car Park" (e.g. "Maritime Car Park accept no liability for loss/damage to vehicles... bla bla". I will therefore be raising the point in my defence that any contracting party with whom any driver agreed terms, could only be "Maritime Car Park" which is firstly not an entity and so could not contract with anyone, and secondly isn't the Claimant.



Just for one thing to be considering. If you could share signage photos they sent you, I would be interested to check if they match mine. I have a little feeling they doctored the dates on mine. Don't get your hopes up as I can't know for sure, but comparing yours and mine would be good.

GAJASA3

didgeridoooo wrote: »

I am going to be in court before you on similar case. I intend to question the validity of their signage photos, and raise a few other issues regarding the signage, most importantly the fact that the signs are written to represent "Maritime Car Park" (e.g. "Maritime Car Park accept no liability for loss/damage to vehicles... bla bla". I will therefore be raising the point in my defence that any contracting party with whom any driver agreed terms, could only be "Maritime Car Park" which is firstly not an entity and so could not contract with anyone, and secondly isn't the Claimant.



Just for one thing to be considering. If you could share signage photos they sent you, I would be interested to check if they match mine. I have a little feeling they doctored the dates on mine. Don't get your hopes up as I can't know for sure, but comparing yours and mine would be good.

I am at the Popla stage with an issue at the same carpark. They have attached about 42 pages of signage allegedly at the Maritime carpark all dated April/June 2018.