We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
County Court Defence - BW Legal
CardinalTobe
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hi,
I'm contesting a BW Legal claim where I was not the driver and had lent the vehicle to a friend. I have now received a county court claim form. I've been looking on here, requested a SAR when I received the letter before claim and received an evidence pack back and a poorly written letter. I have sent off the acknowledgement of service. I'd be grateful if you guys could take a look and offer a 'critique'!
Thanks in advance!
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
KBT CORNWALL LIMITED LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX XXXX XXXX (Defendant)
Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.
Preliminary matters:
I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all
I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver.
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim
The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.
The Particulars of Claim as issued on the Court Claim form contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention which occurred on 25/03/2018 in the private car park/land located at Sennen Cove Harbour, Sennen Cove, TR19 7BT in relation to a XXXX registration mark XXXXXXX." which contradicts previously supplied information by the claimant on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information affirming breach of contract or terms and conditions. The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.
In further support of there being a want of cause of action:
The claimant makes the statement in their letter to me dated 14th March 2019, 'Our client's course of action is that you breached the Terms of Conditions of the contract which you entered into by parking your vehicle in the car park, by not displaying a valid pay and display ticket.' This assumes that I was driving the vehicle at this time, which I was not, and therefore I cannot have entered into a contract with the claimant as I was not driving the vehicle. There is no suggestion of any evidence that I was driving the vehicle at this time, which I was not. The claimant goes on to confirm that they are pursuing me as the keeper not the driver and therefore there cannot be any presumption that I was the driver.
The claimant makes the statement in their letter to me dated 14th March 2019 that 'Our client does not intend to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012.' Despite this they have requested and received my keeper details from the DVLA and confirmed that they are pursuing me as a keeper. Despite my requests the claimant has failed to advise me of the names of the data controller and the signatory to the KADOE contract with the DVLA who is responsible for the strict adherence to their KADOE contract.
There is no case to answer as unless Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012, (which the claimant has confirmed that they do not intend to rely on) is followed to the letter the keeper of a vehicle cannot be held liable for a parking charge if they were not the driver or not proven to be the driver.
Even if Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 was to be followed the notice to keeper must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed in Regulations made under paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. No evidence was supplied by the claimant with the Notice to Keeper that I was sent on the 7th June 2018.
The Notice to Keeper did not provide any warning that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that the “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper. This is required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 for the keeper to be held liable for the claim.
The Notice to Keeper did not provide any details of the discount for payment within 14 days. This is required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 for the keeper to be held liable for the claim.
In the claimant's letter to me dated 14th March 2019 the claimant 'reserves the right to draw the court's attention (if county court proceedings have been issued) to your conduct which may be perceived to be unreasonable in refusing to comply with our reasonable request for information.' I did not respond to the alarmist Notices sent to me by BW Legal because I believed they were spam (this sort of scam had been exposed on Watchdog). Also, as I was not the driver and these were not offences or fines from an Authority like a Council, there was no reason or obligation upon a registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail. I have since researched this, hence my knowledge that these are non-POFA PCNs, incapable of holding me liable anyway.
The details of the claim stated in the claimant's letter to me dated 14th March 2019 stated that 'the £100 charge is regarded as a charge for contravening the terms and conditions' and therefore for breach of contract. As I was not the driver of the vehicle I could not have contravened the terms and conditions of any presumed contract and this was the driver's responsibility for which I am not liable.
Despite my requests, no copy has been provided of the claimant's contract with the landowner, showing the owner of the land and named signatories, under which they assert the authority to bring the claim. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass. As I was not the driver of the vehicle I could not have been trespassing, and this is not the claim that has been brought against me.
The claimant claims in their letter to me dated 14th March 2019 that their client 'As established members of the British Parking Association, our client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ('Code of Practice)'. The Supreme Court Judges in the Parking Eye vs Beavis [2015} UKSC 67 case held that a Code of Practice is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator. The claimant's client is not a member of the British Parking association thus misleading me into preparing my defence against the wrong Code of Practice.
The claimant claims the sum of £168.08 in respect of a Parking Charge Notice and £60 contractual costs, plus £50 legal representatives costs. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees or contractual costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. To add to the lack of care and focus taken in the claimant's unreasonable pursuit of me the claimant has consistently (and continues to do so) spelt my name incorrectly and write my address incorrectly. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.
The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.
I am the Defendant, XXXX XXXX XXXX , DOB XX/XX/XXXX, and reside at XXXXXXXXXXX
I'm contesting a BW Legal claim where I was not the driver and had lent the vehicle to a friend. I have now received a county court claim form. I've been looking on here, requested a SAR when I received the letter before claim and received an evidence pack back and a poorly written letter. I have sent off the acknowledgement of service. I'd be grateful if you guys could take a look and offer a 'critique'!
Thanks in advance!
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
KBT CORNWALL LIMITED LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX XXXX XXXX (Defendant)
Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.
Preliminary matters:
I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all
I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver.
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim
The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.
The Particulars of Claim as issued on the Court Claim form contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention which occurred on 25/03/2018 in the private car park/land located at Sennen Cove Harbour, Sennen Cove, TR19 7BT in relation to a XXXX registration mark XXXXXXX." which contradicts previously supplied information by the claimant on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information affirming breach of contract or terms and conditions. The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.
In further support of there being a want of cause of action:
The claimant makes the statement in their letter to me dated 14th March 2019, 'Our client's course of action is that you breached the Terms of Conditions of the contract which you entered into by parking your vehicle in the car park, by not displaying a valid pay and display ticket.' This assumes that I was driving the vehicle at this time, which I was not, and therefore I cannot have entered into a contract with the claimant as I was not driving the vehicle. There is no suggestion of any evidence that I was driving the vehicle at this time, which I was not. The claimant goes on to confirm that they are pursuing me as the keeper not the driver and therefore there cannot be any presumption that I was the driver.
The claimant makes the statement in their letter to me dated 14th March 2019 that 'Our client does not intend to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012.' Despite this they have requested and received my keeper details from the DVLA and confirmed that they are pursuing me as a keeper. Despite my requests the claimant has failed to advise me of the names of the data controller and the signatory to the KADOE contract with the DVLA who is responsible for the strict adherence to their KADOE contract.
There is no case to answer as unless Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012, (which the claimant has confirmed that they do not intend to rely on) is followed to the letter the keeper of a vehicle cannot be held liable for a parking charge if they were not the driver or not proven to be the driver.
Even if Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 was to be followed the notice to keeper must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed in Regulations made under paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. No evidence was supplied by the claimant with the Notice to Keeper that I was sent on the 7th June 2018.
The Notice to Keeper did not provide any warning that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that the “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper. This is required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 for the keeper to be held liable for the claim.
The Notice to Keeper did not provide any details of the discount for payment within 14 days. This is required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 for the keeper to be held liable for the claim.
In the claimant's letter to me dated 14th March 2019 the claimant 'reserves the right to draw the court's attention (if county court proceedings have been issued) to your conduct which may be perceived to be unreasonable in refusing to comply with our reasonable request for information.' I did not respond to the alarmist Notices sent to me by BW Legal because I believed they were spam (this sort of scam had been exposed on Watchdog). Also, as I was not the driver and these were not offences or fines from an Authority like a Council, there was no reason or obligation upon a registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail. I have since researched this, hence my knowledge that these are non-POFA PCNs, incapable of holding me liable anyway.
The details of the claim stated in the claimant's letter to me dated 14th March 2019 stated that 'the £100 charge is regarded as a charge for contravening the terms and conditions' and therefore for breach of contract. As I was not the driver of the vehicle I could not have contravened the terms and conditions of any presumed contract and this was the driver's responsibility for which I am not liable.
Despite my requests, no copy has been provided of the claimant's contract with the landowner, showing the owner of the land and named signatories, under which they assert the authority to bring the claim. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass. As I was not the driver of the vehicle I could not have been trespassing, and this is not the claim that has been brought against me.
The claimant claims in their letter to me dated 14th March 2019 that their client 'As established members of the British Parking Association, our client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ('Code of Practice)'. The Supreme Court Judges in the Parking Eye vs Beavis [2015} UKSC 67 case held that a Code of Practice is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator. The claimant's client is not a member of the British Parking association thus misleading me into preparing my defence against the wrong Code of Practice.
The claimant claims the sum of £168.08 in respect of a Parking Charge Notice and £60 contractual costs, plus £50 legal representatives costs. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees or contractual costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. To add to the lack of care and focus taken in the claimant's unreasonable pursuit of me the claimant has consistently (and continues to do so) spelt my name incorrectly and write my address incorrectly. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.
The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.
I am the Defendant, XXXX XXXX XXXX , DOB XX/XX/XXXX, and reside at XXXXXXXXXXX
0
Comments
-
What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?0 -
As you have pointed out, they are claiming far more then the law allows. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.
It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.
Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.
I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.
https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page
as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.
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.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Issue Date is 3rd May 2019, so that makes the service date 8th May 2019.
I am going to send this tomorrow as it needs to be there for Wednesday.
Yes the papers came from the County Court business centre in Northampton.0 -
Thanks I will complain to their trade body. Just reading the stuff on here makes your toes curl!0
-
You are right with your target date - assuming you did the Acknowledgement of Service before 22nd May.CardinalTobe wrote: »Issue Date is 3rd May 2019, so that makes the service date 8th May 2019.
I am going to send this tomorrow as it needs to be there for Wednesday.
Yes the papers came from the County Court business centre in Northampton.
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.
When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:-
Print your Defence.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- 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'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
- 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.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
I assume the original has paragraph numbers that just haven't copied over here?
You need to change 'I' and 'me' to 'The Defendant', throughout. Not ''me''.
I would remove this as it is waffle:The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim
The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.
And this bit is not true; if there was a windscreen PCN, the NTK does not have to offer a discount:The Notice to Keeper did not provide any details of the discount for payment within 14 days. This is required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 for the keeper to be held liable for the claim.
Hooray, that is a winner in law, if you explain the POFA well to a Judge who may not be at all familiar with Schedule 4, remember. Thank goodness you can truthfully state that you were not the driver.The claimant makes the statement in their letter to me dated 14th March 2019 that 'Our client does not intend to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012.'
There is no cause of action here and you could even do a counter claim if you fancy it and want to throw £35 or so (court fee) at it to get £200 - £300 awarded if the Judge agrees!
Are you saying the parking event was in March but the NTK wasn't posted till June 2018? Why not, was this a lease/company or hire car?
Do you know why there was no Pay&Display ticket, or if the driver did actually pay but input a partial VRN or something, or that it was a typical Armtrac scam involving a flimsy 'fluttering ticket' blown from the dashboard or knocked off by the Armtrac ticketer, maybe leaning on the car or blowing in the vents (allegedly) as used to happen in the old clamping days?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards