CCJ BWlegal referred to county court!

abzman

Hi everyone. I'm fairly new to this and would appreciate any support i can get!

So a few months ago (December 2018), I was issued with a parking charge notice by Parking and Property Management Ltd.

It was issued in a gated residential area where my sister lives, at 0327am! I felt it was unfair as I was parked in the visitors bay, which was clearly marked 'V', whereas every other parking spot had a property number assigned. I have a photo of my car parked on the 'V'.

The signage was unclear as to where i could park, for how long, it just said a permit needs to be displayed. It did not clarify how long the car could be parked in the visitor bay.

I emailed the company, did not disclose the driver and stated i wouldnt do so as i am not legally bound to, but informed them of the issue and that i felt it was unfair. All the response i got said 'we cannot proceed until you name the driver'.

Next thing i know the case is referred to BW legal, who very quickly referred it to county court!

I've done the AOS form online a few days ago - no response yet.

Do i have a credible defence? I am not sure how to produce a credible defence document ( I guess i submit it online in the government gateway portal).

I have evidence in the form of a photo of the vehicle and a photo of the sign which was not clear in my view. Feels like they are trying to con me!

KeithP

abzman wrote: »

Next thing i know the case is referred to BW legal, who very quickly referred it to county court!

I've done the AOS form online a few days ago - no response yet.

I am not sure how to produce a credible defence document ( I guess I submit it online in the government gateway portal).

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Do not try and file a Defence until you have read my next post.

You now need to be reading post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Coupon-mad

I've done the AOS form online a few days ago - no response yet.

You don't get a response to AOS. It's in your hands to defend it in time.

Do i have a credible defence?

Yes. Based on unclear signs and any contract being void for impossibility, because the alleged contractual licence is only offered to permit holders.

Read PACE v Lengyel. It's hosted on the Parking Prankster's case law pages.

I am not sure how to produce a credible defence document

Then you haven't yet read the example defences in the NEWBIES thread.

( I guess i submit it online in the government gateway portal).

Wrong. See KeithP's clear instructions of the first steps.

The_Deep

Read this

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

What does her lease/AST say about parking permits?

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.

abzman

KeithP wrote: »

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Do not try and file a Defence until you have read my next post.

You now need to be reading post #2 of FAQ sticky thread[/URL].

Thanks i am going through it. The issue date is 24th May 2019.

I did the AOS online, now just researching, Am i right in saying I have 30 days from the issue date now?

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th May, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 26th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over 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.

abzman

Thanks for all your help..

I have drafted my first pass defence. Would appreciate your thoughts!

---

---

CLAIM No: xxxxxx

BETWEEN:

"parking company" (Claimant)

-and-

xxxx(Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the car park at xxxxxxx address xxxxx.

3. The Particulars of Claim stated do not specify if the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. 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.

4. 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.

5.1. It is noted that the car park, on the date of alleged contravention, has a designated visitor bay clearly marked by a ‘V’, in which the vehicle was clearly parked in. Other bays had designated house numbers.
5.2 The signage did not stipulate in any way the contract to which the claimant was proposing with regards to the visitor parking bay. No detail whatsoever with regards to visitors was stipulated.
5.3. "parking company" have not communicated, nor issued a process defining how to utilise the clearly marked, designated visitor bay. Therefore the company has provided the facility for visitor parking, yet have not stipulated any clear or practical method to establish an arrangement to use the visitor parking bay.
5.4. In summary, the claimant has provided a visitor parking bay facility, yet do not stipulate the conditions set by using it. The on site-signage does not even mention it, nor has there been any communication referring to the visitor bay, the issued PCN did not refer to the visitor bay either. Yet the claimant saw fit to issue a PCN despite all these factors. One can only question the motive of the company to conceal the requirements, and yet still issue a PCN at 0327am on a Saturday morning when there is no-one around.

6. No relevant obligation, and hence contract was in place with regards to parking on this land base case, and additionally with the visitor parking bay. A relevant contract means “a contract between the driver and a person who is the owner or occupier of the land”. The Claimant has not demonstrated that they have the authority of the occupier or owner of the site to enter into contracts with people who park their cars in the car park, and that it was a valid and enforceable contract. The Claimant did not set the requirements, nor basis to propose a contract with regards to the visitor bay. Pace Vs. Zoltan (May 2017 C7GF6E3R) sets this precedence.

7.1. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

7.2. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Even if the writing on the sign was readable, the signage is in such a position that any driver must look away from where they are going in order to even see the sign itself, as it is above eye level in a vehicle. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7.3. The British Parking Association ("BPA") Code of Practice sets the requirements for entrance signs. The following requirements are mandatory:
(a) The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.

8. 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.

9.1. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.
9.2. 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. Such costs are not permitted.
9.3. 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.


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. The Claimant had also clearly provided a visitor facility, yet failed to stipulate any method to establish an arrangement or contract to use it. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

12. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA and, further, that the signs failed to provide ‘adequate notice’ of any charge. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name

Le_Kirk

Your points 5.1 - 5.4 and in some parts point 6, all seem to saying the same thing. Do you need them all - in the interests of being concise.

Coupon-mad

Pace Vs. Zoltan

PACE v Lengyel. Zoltan was his first name!

abzman

Thanks for the feedback.

I have removed a lot of the 'template' stuff, so to simplify a bit. Would appreciate your feedback, i think pending your valuable input, this will be my last draft (amended with your input).

BETWEEN:

Parking and Property Management Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the car park at xxxxxxxxxx.

3.1. It is noted that the car park, on the date of alleged contravention, has a designated visitor bay clearly marked by a ‘V’, in which the vehicle was unmistakably parked in. Other bays had designated house numbers.
3.2 The signage did not stipulate in any way the contract to which the claimant was proposing with regards to the visitor parking bay. No detail whatsoever with regards to visitors was stipulated, the term visitor was not even used.
3.3. Parking & Property Management Ltd have not communicated, nor issued a process defining how to utilise the clearly marked, designated visitor bay. Therefore the company has provided the facility for visitor parking, yet have not stipulated any clear or practical method to establish an arrangement to use the visitor parking bay.
3.4. In summary, the claimant has provided a visitor parking bay facility, yet do not stipulate the conditions set by using it. The on site-signage does not even mention it, nor has there been any communication referring to the visitor bay, the issued PCN did not refer to the visitor bay either. Yet the claimant saw fit to issue a PCN despite all these factors. One can only question the motive of the company to conceal the requirements, and yet still issue a PCN at xxxxam on a Saturday morning when there is no-one around.

4. No relevant obligation, and hence contract was in place with regards to parking on this land base case, and additionally with the visitor parking bay. A relevant contract means “a contract between the driver and a person who is the owner or occupier of the land”. The Claimant has not demonstrated that they have the authority of the occupier or owner of the site to enter into contracts with people who park their cars in the car park, and that it was a valid and enforceable contract. The Claimant did not set the requirements, nor basis to propose a contract with regards to the visitor bay. Pace Vs. Lengyel (May 2017 C7GF6E3R) concluded the requirement of a valid contract.

5.1. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

5.2. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Even if the writing on the sign was readable, the signage is in such a position that any driver must look away from where they are going in order to even see the sign itself, as it is above eye level in a vehicle. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5.3. The British Parking Association ("BPA") Code of Practice sets the requirements for entrance signs. The following requirements are mandatory:
(a) The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.

6. 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.

7.1. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.
7.2. 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. Such costs are not permitted.
7.3. 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.
8. In summary it is the defendants position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit and has no 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.

Name
Signature
Date

beamerguy

Just to add ...... a thread on here regarding the fake £60

12th June 2019
Southampton court threw out a case from BWLegal because of Abuse of Process regarding the fake BWLegal add-on. READ ALL ABOUT IT .... POST #10
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75917866&posted=1#post75917866

Read what the District Judge said .... ABUSE OF PROCESS