Advice BW Legal defence and response to Claim

Completelyg

Hello all

I received a parking ticket and notice to keeper towards the end of last year.

NTK arrived 6 weeks after the alleged parking offence. I have followed the advice on the sticky and ignored all debt collection letters following initial appeal.

Following letter before claim I responded with a SAR to Armtrac , BW Legal and DVLA at the start of March.

I have received reply from DVLA, but nothing from Armtrac. BW Legal sent standard repsonse saying they would not delay claim.

I have now received Claim form from the County Court and was hoping for some advice on responding to this form and how to prepare a defence.

Also Is it possible to get a relocation of court where the case will be heard?

Let me know if any additional information is helpful.

Coupon-mad

Completelyg wrote: »

Also Is it possible to get a relocation of court where the case will be heard?

Yes, you choose it later on as part of the normal procedure.

You really need to read the section in the NEWBIES thread post #2 under the red heading 'IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' and click on bargepole's Court Procedures thread.

All of this is answered there, and you will calm down if you feel informed & prepared. It also shows you how to do the AOS, and defences.

Also, there are several defences written for Armtrac cases this past week so get searching & reading the forum, you can copy from them. if it's Sennen Cove, search for Sennen and otherwise search for Armtrac.

What is the issue date of your N1 claim?

Completelyg

Thanks for your quick response.

The N1 was issued on the 3rd May. I filled in AOS online today. So by my calculations I have until 5th June to file a defence. I will however need to do this by end of next week as I'm away from 24th May.

I have looked at the defence from other recent Armtrac cases, but I would assume the fluttering ticket defence would not work if I am unable to produce a valid ticket.

I am yet to receive any sort of response from Armtrac regarding my SAR request, but have pictures they sent on original appeal. Is it worth chasing them up regarding this?

KeithP

Completelyg wrote: »

The N1 was issued on the 3rd May. I filled in AOS online today. So by my calculations I have until 5th June to file a defence.

You are right with your target date.

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd May, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but 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.

Le_Kirk

Completelyg wrote: »

I am yet to receive any sort of response from Armtrac regarding my SAR request, but have pictures they sent on original appeal. Is it worth chasing them up regarding this?

PPCs have 30 days to respond to a SAR, therefore, unless you submitted it over 30 days ago, it's a waiting game.

Completelyg

I submitted the SAR back in early March. So it's well over 30 days.

Redx

email a reminder then , if they ignore this second SAR (with a copy or scan or pic of the V5C as proof of I.D.) then report them to the ICO

Coupon-mad

I would assume the fluttering ticket defence would not work if I am unable to produce a valid ticket.

No, if that was the truth then you must say it in defence, and at the hearing at your local court. It is a defence point and the Judge will decide whose evidence he/she prefers.

Completelyg

I have drafted a defence below. Any feedback would be most welcome.

Also been struggling to find an up to date image of signage at Sennen Cove Beach car park, as I failed to take pictures on the day unfortunately. If anyone is able to help me out here that would be great!


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: ********
BETWEEN:

KBT Cornwall LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The particulars of the claim make no reference to the exact nature of the alleged breach, only a vague mention of a parking contravention and therefore do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5. By not including a statement of facts on which the claimant relies the claim fails to fulfil CPR Part 16.4. It also fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence; further the details of the claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR Part 16.4 1(a).

1.1 Despite a Subject Access Request sent on XX March 2019 the claimant has still failed to provide necessary evidence which would allow the Defendant to adequately prepare a defence. This is a failure by the claimant to adhere to terms set out in the data protection act of 1998

2. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the car park at Sennen Beach. The defendant was not the driver of the car on this date.

4. The defendant understands that the law allows for a contract to exist by virtue signage at car parking sites, but that there is a considerable onus on this signage in terms of size, clarity of fonts and colours to establish that same, legally binding agreement. These requirements were made clear in the Supreme Court ruling in the Beavis Case, (ParkingEyeLtd v Beavis (2015) UKSC). The signage at the car park in question does not meet these strict requirements, and as such it is denied that the driver of the vehicle in question entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The claimant and BW Legal have already been informed, in no uncertain terms, that they are dealing with the Registered Keeper in this matter, that there is no legal requirement for the Defendant to identify the driver, and that this information would certainly not be volunteered to them.

6. In light of this the claimant’s has attempted to transfer liability to the registered keeper, however this would fall under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). The POFA (schedule 4 paragraph 8(2)f specifically requires a PPC to give the Registered Keeper a further 28 days notice of their intention to pursue for payment if the driver is not made known to them. This important notice was absent from the Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant.
The action being brought by the claimant is therefore non compliant with the law and as such liability cannot be conferred onto the Defendant (the Registered Keeper).

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 charge also states in Section 4(5) that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the registered keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. This claim includes an additional £60, of “contractual costs”. No calculation has been given by the claimant for these costs, and no proof shown that they have been incurred. In fact the claimant has repeatedly denied paying for debt collection services.

8. Further, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary 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.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that due to the claimants failure to comply with POFA 2012; inadequate signage at the parking location; and a failure to provide sufficient information regarding the claim despite a Subject Access Request; that the claim should be struck off. Furthermore the claimant and their legal team are using the court process as a threat to extract exorbitant fees for alleged contract breaches.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence to be true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Also been struggling to find an up to date image of signage at Sennen Cove Beach car park, as I failed to take pictures on the day unfortunately. If anyone is able to help me out here that would be great!

Is there another Sennen thread with pics on it? Not sure.

If not then they will show pics at WS & evidence stage anyway.

In your defence don't use our acronym 'PPC' which means nothing away from here:

requires a PPC

And there is a typo here:

6. In light of this the claimant’s has attempted

...and a superfluous word needs deleting here:

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 charge also states

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.