Letter of Claim by BW LEGAL

KeithP

This is important.

If they did not get the keeper's details from the DVLA, then they cannot transfer the driver's liability to the keeper.

I've not read back through your thread, but if they do not have the identity of the driver and they have not retrieved the keeper's details from the DVLA, then the keeper cannot be held liable.

ajbeats17

Okay, so if I don’t receive a response by the DVLA in time. Can I insist they must prove they received my details from the DVLA in order for me to be found liable?


It’s up to them to prove themselves right, not me prove them wrong? Because their is no evidence they’ve supplied with this witness statement about correspondence with the DVLA.

Will my correspondence with them (appeal) not override the need for the DVLA as I have confirmed myself as the owner. Even though they haven’t argued this in their witness statement.

KeithP

Then the balance of probabilities may come into play.

You have no evidence of their alleged wrongdoing.
They have provided no evidence of playing to the rules.

It's down to who can convince the judge that they are telling the truth.

ajbeats17

Should I refrain from arguing that I did appeal then, when they claimed I didn’t?

As that would clearly make me the registered owner or is it more a case of them having to go down the official channels whether I’m the owner or not?

I do also refer to the vehicle as ‘my’ in my own witness statement

KeithP

ajbeats17 wrote: »

Will my correspondence with them (appeal) not override the need for the DVLA as I have confirmed myself as the owner. Even though they haven’t argued this in their witness statement.

What has being the owner got to do with it?

As I said earlier, if they want to transfer the driver's liability to the keeper, they have to have retrieved the keeper's details from the DVLA. POFA is clear on that. POFA para 11(1)(c) refers.

ajbeats17

Oh okay, sorry. Thank you for that.

beamerguy

Considering BWLegal think they are solicitors, what a load of rubbish they wish to rely on ???

2. Refer to case Vehicle Control Services Limited v Alfred Charles Crutchley (2017) where court confirmed the user should familiarise themselves with T&C’s.

That was a couple of years ago before the courts understood the fake £60 claims of BWL.
VCS/EXCEL being the same outfit, if they want to start name dropping, feast your eyes on the BWL failures where they represented VCS/EXCEL
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73024830#Comment_73024830

5. Refer to ParkingEye v Beavis, concluding £100 is a reasonable sum.
WHOOPS BWLEGAL, the Supreme Court actually said that £85 was a reasonable

6. Claim my defence is plagiarised from the internet, as such should be subject to cross examination if not proved.
You are entitled to copy and on MSE there are not rights or regulations for you to abide upon, members give this free.
CROSS EXAMINATION ???? Do they really think a busy county court judge will waste his time on this ??? Or are BWL going to bring Perry Mason to court ?

7. My primary position as leaseholder should be dismissed in its entirety due to no tangible evidence being provided.

You have proof ......

8. Possession of key fob proves nothing, as a lodger could have possession.
Don't be so daft BWLegal ? prove this rubbish about a lodger, your claim is about a parking ticket given to the registered keeper who has the fob key ?

9. Cost of recovery being £60, were agreed by me due to parking in the car park.
Really does not matter what they say.... IT'S ABUSE OF PROCESS
1: POFA2012 and The Supreme Court both say that this fake charge is not applicable and cannot be added

BWLegal still on the ABUSE OF PROCESS fake £60 that judges have said no and kicked them out of court.

BWLegal are showing contempt to the courts and they must think judges are stupid.

This is going to be another spanking for BWLegal so they best do what they are good at .... discontinue the case

I don't think I have ever seen such a dismal childish claim

ajbeats17

Beamerguy, that is amazing. Thank you so so much for that. I’m going to construct my counter argument using your post as a skeleton.

Even I, and I’m useless at this, thought their statement wasn’t the best. I don’t want to get ahead of myself though.

beamerguy

ajbeats17 wrote: »

Beamerguy, that is amazing. Thank you so so much for that. I’m going to construct my counter argument using your post as a skeleton.

Even I, and I’m useless at this, thought their statement wasn’t the best. I don’t want to get ahead of myself though.

ok, but run everything through us first.

And make certain you understand ABUSE OF PROCESS and in particular the defence you can use by coupon-mad in post #14 with her compliments ......
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

So you know ..... Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own

In your claim, you are referencing defence points and yes you got them from the internet (they mean MSE) and YES you have permission

BWLegal referenced Vehicle Control Services Limited v Alfred Charles Crutchley
That's what Plagiarism is and did they ask Mr Crutchley for permission

Do you see how daft their claim is ???

ajbeats17

MY SKELETON COUNTER.

1.Formation of contract: unilateral offer means there is no need to communicate their acceptance.

The tenancy trumps signage here, in the case of Link Parking Ltd vs Jayne Parkinson, deputy district judge Metcalf dismissed the claim stating that “There is nothing in the covenant that requires her (Jayne Parkinson) to display a valid parking permit”, which is exactly the same in this instance.


2. Refer to case Vehicle Control Services Limited v Alfred Charles Crutchley (2017) where court confirmed the user should familiarise themselves with T&C’s.

That was a couple of years ago before the courts understood the fake £60 claims of BWL.
VCS/EXCEL being the same outfit, in a number of cases; n Excel Parking Services v Drain Trace Ltd, the judge ruled that common sense should prevail.



3. State I did NOT appeal prior to court proceedings, which is false and I have proof of their email receiving my original appeal.

BW legal are misleading the claim as they have lied about there being no appeal put in place before the court proceedings started. I have brought with me the email chain between Parking & Property Management where they accept receipt of my appeal, on the night on the PCN. This is a clear attempt to mislead the proceedings to suggest I deliberately avoided any form of resolution, which is a lie.


4. State claimant wouldn’t have known my details and obtained them from the DVLA, which is false because I gave them my details when I appealed.

BW Legal have failed to provide any evidence of obtaining my information from the DVLA. Therefore, it is more than reasonable to believe that the way they obtained my details was through the appeals process I initiated. If they want to transfer the driver's liability to the keeper, they have to have retrieved the keeper's details from the DVLA. POFA is clear on that. POFA para 11(1)(c) refers.


6. Claim my defence is plagiarised from the internet, as such should be subject to cross examination if not proved.

I have decided to utilise the internet to provide me with support for this claim. I have permission to do this and haven’t plagiarised anyone at any point. If BW Legal decided to claim plagiarism, doesn’t quoting/citing/referencing Vehicle Control Services Limited v Alfred Charles Crutchley count as exactly that? Did Mr Crutchley give permission?


7. My primary position as leaseholder should be dismissed in its entirety due to no tangible evidence being provided.

Present my Lease (they both have a copy).



8. Possession of key fob proves nothing, as a lodger could have possession.


BW Legal have to provide evidence of this lodger they refer to. As a registered keeper, we are entitled to a key fob, so I am interested to know who else would need it.



9. Cost of recovery being £60, were agreed by me due to parking in the car park.


Really does not matter what they say....!IT'S ABUSE OF PROCESS.

Southampton Court
Judge Giddins
claim numbers: F4DP5264 & F4DP5279

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 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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.

Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019

"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 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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 "


The POFA 2012 and the ATA Code of Practice are against this Claim
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') at paras 4(5) and 4(6) 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' (further, 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.



The Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA') is against this claim
10. Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 60% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source.



In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:!''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''



That decision in Wales was contested in a N244 application by VCS, but the added £60 was still disallowed on 30 Oct 2019. District Judge Jones-Evans stated that even in cases parking firms win, he never allows the £60 add on, and despite parking firms continuing to include it in their Particulars, most advocates have now stopped pushing for it at hearings. The Judge said that a contract formed by signage is a deemed contract, which the motorist does not have the opportunity to negotiate. That, and the fact that there is no specified sum on the signage, means that the extra £60 cannot possibly be recoverable. He said that the £60 was clearly a penalty, and an abuse of process. The considered sum in that case was reduced to £100 with a full case hearing to follow, but the £60 would not be awarded under any circumstances, and further, he ordered that the Claimant must now produce a statement of how they pleaded claims prior to!Beavis, and subsequently.