Mostly LOST case— (Premier Park & BWlegal for ANPR overstay)

WhizzKid

I am the registered keeper of a vehicle and was in receipt of a PCN from Premier Park for an alleged event in a retail park car park in February 2018 by “overstaying” by 25 minutes. ANPR is in operation there. I can prove purchases at 2 of the retailers in the park. Foolishly at the time I did not pursue the managers of the retailers nor landowner (if I had been able to ascertain them).

I appealed through POPLA (at that time I used Pepipoo advice on how to complete it, and it was felt to be a satisfactory appeal application, although despite post-graduate degrees I did feel very patronised on Pepipoo!). The appeal was unsuccessful. I complained to POPLA that in the appeal decision that certain aspects of my appeal were clearly ignored and not addressed. The POPLA decision was upheld.

I have issued a SAR to Premier Park.
I have replied to the LBC and referred to my requirement to obtain debt advice.

My 28 days is up tomorrow and I have received no replies. I expect a claim in due course.

I have full transcripts of everything thus far to share.

Le_Kirk

Yep, you are in "wait" mode.

The_Deep

PoPLA decisions are often less than impartial, and the adjudicators are likely to be recently qualified Law Students seeking placements. We are often surprised by the poor quality of their decisions.

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.

beamerguy

I assume that in typical BWLegal style. they have added a fake charge of £60.

You need to read this link about ABUSE OF PROCESS by BWLegal

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

WhizzKid

So "wait mode" is now over, and I have a County Court Claim.
Issue Date 19/7/2019 from Northampton

The amount claimed is £100
+
Interest 8% p/a pro rata
+
£60 contractual costs "pursuant to PCN terms & conditions"

I can see no reference to £60 on the PCN, nor any subsequent correspondence until the latest BWLegal letter adding £60 debt recovery costs.

I now have back my SAR.
Interestingly, not only are photos of the vehicle in question included, but also many other timed & dated photos of other vehicles with their registrations. Photos of notices, etc., dated.
I can also see that where I previously sought advice on Pepipoo, the URL of my posts is in the comments section of the details that Premier Park hold.
There is also a heavily redacted contract.

I have completed an AOS intending to defend all of the claim…

KeithP

WhizzKid wrote: »

So "wait mode" is now over, and I have a County Court Claim.
Issue Date 19/7/2019 from Northampton.

I have completed an AOS intending to defend all of the claim…

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 21st August 2019 to file your Defence.

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

WhizzKid

So I thought I might test out my defence here. I am mindful that it has been extracted from examples I have come across for y extensive reading of the forums and many documents pointed to. It has been quite a read.
It feels short, but at least concise. Note that in my version all paragraphs are neatly numbered.

Here goes:

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxx

BETWEEN:
Premier Park LTD (Claimant)
-and-
xxxx (Defendant)

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

The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxx in question at the time of the alleged incident.

The Claim Form issued on the xxxxx by BW Legal was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature, and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by BW Legal as the Claimant’s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle xxx when it was parked at xxxxx.

The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
Further and in the alternative, it is denied that 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 is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. 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.

No standing or landowner authority

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 under defined parameters and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

Unconscionable sum claimed - double recovery - abuse of process
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.

In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant has 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. The Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

The Claimant is a serial offender on this regard and must be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims track. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

In a very recent case, District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case from the Claimant that included a false amount of £60 due to abuse of process.
Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019

"IT IS ORDERED THAT the claim is struck out as an abuse of process.
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”

Additionally, District Judge Grand has recently concluded that an additional sum such as the Claimant is seeking to recover is knowingly inflated and and the Claimant is not entitled to recover it (F0DP163T, Southampton Court, 11th July 2019)

In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


Statement of Truth:

"I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."

Date

Redx

its DEFENCE , not DEFENCE STATEMENT


add The Judges both stated (before IT IS ORDERED)

WhizzKid

Sorry. I had spotted previously that error, and carelessly replicated it. Amended.
I have put the ORDER after the 2 conclusion references and added that they stated it.

Many thanks.

beamerguy

WhizzKid wrote: »

Sorry. I had spotted previously that error, and carelessly replicated it. Amended.
I have put the ORDER after the 2 conclusion references and added that they stated it.

Many thanks.

You have not done what Redx says ...
>>>>>>>>"IT IS ORDERED THAT the claim is struck out

WhizzKid

14. The Judges both stated,
"IT IS ORDERED THAT the claim is struck out as an abuse of process.
The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay…

Was what I had now put.