County Court Claim Form - BW Legal

Coupon-mad

Ooh, you didn't show us your draft counter claim?

Did you at least pay the court fee to the CCBC to make it live?

On second thoughts, show us the exact counter claim wording as it may be a non starter (hope not but we could have helped you draft it with strong facts and statute/case law).

banana101

Ah, thanks both, and yes, paid the £60 counterclaim fee.

Have copied and pasted the counterclaim below. In hindsight, I probably should have shown it prior.

"The parking signage was not present at all times; rather, the sign was simply ‘hooked’ onto a fence at a time convenient to the original Claimant and then removed after the photo had been taken. This can be exemplified by two images provided to myself by Premier Park Limited from a Subject Access Request, which were both taken on 20th March 2015, one at 09:07:51; one at 09:08:32, where the signage was absent in the former image, but could then be seen 41 seconds later in the latter image.

As a result, over 4-5 years, I have been receiving threatening letters from both Premier Park Limited and BW Legal which has had a profound impact on my mental health, such that I have required GP intervention, and been prescribed SSRI medication so as to ameliorate the negative effects of anxiety."

Thanks again!

KeithP

So where's the claim then?

No mention of any sum being claimed.

banana101

On the MCOL I was asked how much the counterclaim would be for. £702.16, which is the exact amount they are claiming from myself.
Thank you.

banana101

Counterclaim Amount£702.16Court Fee£60.00Nature of counterclaimIntent to Deceive Contract Law;
Cause of anxiety and Depression.

banana101

Hi all,
I received a 'Reply' to my defence, which I was hoping to get some advice on, as I am not sure where to go from here, which is as follows:

"1. The Claimant repeats the facts and matters set out in the Particulars of the Claim..
2. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Claimant's Claim is in relation to three separate unpaid Parking Charge Notices ('PCN's) which were issued following the Defendant's breaches of the terms and conditions (the 'Terms and Conditions') in operation at Derrymore, Llandrindod Wells, Temple Street, Llandrindod Wells, LD1 5HG (the 'Site').
3. The following points are relevant to the Claimant's claim:
3.1 The Site is privately owned property, which is managed by the Claimant;
3.2 The Terms and Conditions require the motorists to display a valid parking permit when parking at the Site.
3.3 The Terms and Conditions made it explicitly clear that a £100.00 PCN would apply if a motorist failed to clearly display a valid parking permit.
4. On 6/2/2015, 12/2/2015 and 20/3/2015 (the 'Contravention Dates'), the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle, registration number (the 'Vehicle').
5. The Claimant's parking Attendant (the 'PA') observed the Vehicle parked at the Site on the Contravention Dates.
6. The Defendant failed to display a valid parking permit on the Contravention Dates, which was prima facie a breach of the Claimant's Terms and Conditions.
7. The Claimant offered t contract with the motorist, providing a limited license to the Defendant to park at the Car Park on the basis of the Terms and Conditions. The Claimant provided their end of the bargain permitting the parking of the Defendant's Vehicle at the Car Park. However, this was on the understanding that the Defendant would abide by the Terms and Conditions, and a charge would become payable in the event of a breach.
8. For the avoidance of any doubt, it is expressly denied that the Defendant is entitled to set off against the Claim the sums counterclaimed, or any sums. The Defendant is referred to the Defence to Counterclaim set out below.

Defence to Counterclaim

9.The Claimant denies that it is indebted to the Defendant in the sum claimed, or at all.
10. The Defendant fails to particularise and is required to prove that he has suffered the loss as set out in the counterclaim, or any loss and damage, and the basis on which such loss is purportedly calculated.
11. The Defendant's counterclaim appears to be in relation to:
11.1 Intent to deceive contract law; and
11.2 A cause of anxiety and depression.
12. The Claimant denies any allegations of intention to deceive contract law and further denies that the PCN's being the sole cause of any anxiety and depression.
13. In any event the Defendant fails to particularise the and is required to prove that he has suffered any loss or damage, and the basis on which such loss is purportedly calculated.
14. The Defendant should also note that costs upon the Small Claims track are to be borne by each party.
15. Further, for which it is denied, if the Defendant has suffered loss and damage it is denies that the same was caused by the Claimant.
16. The Claimant has set out a clear reason as to why a claim is due and has substantiated the same with tangible evidence, something which both the defence and Counterclaim fail to achieve.
17. The Defendant has failed to provide any tangible evidence in support of his Counterclaim and if there is any merit to this allegations in respect of loss suffered (which is doubtful) the Defendant should be able to furnish the court and the Claimant with any supporting documents, clearly specifying the loss suffered.
18. The Claimant states that its course of conduct has at all times been reasonable. Following the Claimant issuing a valid PCN, the Claimant sought to recover the PCN charge from the Defendant for breaching the Terms and Conditions of the contractual agreement between the Claimant and Defendant.
19. The Defendant is put to strict proof as to mitigation.
20. The Defendant fails to state whether any interest is sought, however for the avoidance of doubt, any claim by the Defendant for interest entitlement is denied.
The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this reply and defence to counterclaim are true."

Do I reply to this? I have photographic evidence (as stated in defence) of the sign being absent in one of the photographs (some 44 seconds after a photos was taken); current photos of the area, of which there is no signage. Also, I was not offered a contact as stated in '7'; nor did I disclose that I was the driver.

It would be greatly appreciated if anyone was able to advise.

Thank you

banana101

Hi all, I have drafted my witness statement and was hoping someone could skim over it to see if I have missed anything? Many thanks as usual.

1. I am xxx, of xxx, the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:-
2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.
3. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, and this Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.
4. I assert that I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question.
5. In respect to the Defence, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage was present at all times; rather, that the sign was simply ‘hooked’ onto a fence at a time convenient to the Parking Attendant (PA), and by implication, the Claimant and then removed after the photo had been taken, which is why photos prior to the Defendant’s vehicle being parked there, whether 10 minutes or 10 hours prior, are completely absent. The above is exemplified by a range of photographs taken by: the PA on behalf of the Claimant; and by the Defendant, more recently.
5.1 The PA’s photographs have been signposted as ‘1a’ and ‘1b’. ‘1a’ shows where the parking sign has been ‘hooked’ onto the fence, and in turn provides a reference point for its purported permanent location, the date and time is 20 March 2015 at 09:07:51am. ‘1b’ shows a photograph of my vehicle, and also shows the fence in the distance from ‘1a’; however, the sign is now absent, the date and time is 20 March 2015 at 09:08:32, some 41 seconds after the first photo was taken.
5.2 As this sign had never been observed by the Defendant, and objective evidence has delineated the sporadic appearance of the sign, the Defence believes that the reliability and moral integrity of the PA is in fact questionable, and also exemplifies the absence of any sort of regulation by the Claimant of the land which they claim to own.
5.3 Other relevant photographs taken by the PA on behalf of the Claimant are signposted as ‘1c-1g’. Assuming that the PA had diligently installed the parking signage (which is doubtful from the above), it is not situated in a prominent position, and from what the Defence can see from the photographs, does not present the text in a font large enough to read. In particular, while all of those photographs reflect this, ‘1f’ really substantiates this position. Worryingly, to date I am still unaware of the particulars of the signage, and by implication ‘contract’ of which they are trying to hold me liable. Only through the Claimant’s intimidating written correspondence did I establish the alleged contravention that the Claimant is advocating.
5.4 Further, photographs taken by the Defendant on dates ranging from 8 July 2019 to 11 July 2019, signposted as ‘2a-2i’ show the current state on the parking area purportedly owned by the Claimant, which not only exemplify a complete absence of parking signage, but also the absence of marked bays, and the presence of numerous vehicles not presenting a permit, which is argued by the Claimant in #6 of their reply, as being an essential precursor to parking at the Site in order to be compliant with their absent Terms and Conditions.
5.5 Further photographs taken by the Defendant on 7 August 2019, signposted as ‘3a-3d’ show the convenient appearance of bay markings some two weeks after the Claimant received my Defence argument. However, the Parking area purportedly owned by Premier Park still exemplifies an absence of parking signage.
5.6 Accordingly, I believe the above not only highlights the PA’s, and by implication, the Claimant’s non-compliance to the BPA’s Code of Practice, but also exemplifies an intent to deceive contract law, at the expense of the Defendant, which is why the Defence feels it necessary to counterclaim for the same figure (£702.16) that they would otherwise have been ordered to pay the Claimant if not challenged.
6. Re. #7 of the Claimant’s reply, it is denied that the Claimant offered to contract with the motorist, through the provision of a limited license to the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof that this is the case, as opposed to simply the robo-claim nature of their copy and paste claims. BW Legal issues tens of thousands of claims per month and are churning out claims for Excel and its sister company VCS, in the thousands.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signature:


Date

banana101

bump______