Premier Parking\ BW legal- County Claim Form received

countdowniscool

Thanks to Quentin, this is new ground for me, i have revised something below,

Quentin

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving


You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving


The ppcs monitor this forum and can use posts in your thread against you


(And if you have used your real name as your board name, then you need to get MSE to change it to something anonymous, and edit it out of your OP)

countdowniscool

Sincere thanks to Quentin, i have replaced any identifying information with xxxxx, i did put more information about the situation at the bottom and have removed that as well, am i now being too paranoid?

If you're reading these then thank you I do appreciate it.

Any advice or input however harsh gratefully received.

We're at the County Court claim stage, and we've come up with this:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:!

Premier Park Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (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 a marked bay at XXXXXX car park on the evening of the xxxxxxxxx. The Driver was unaware that premier park Limited had recently taken over management of the Car park and when doing so started applying parking charges. Previously, everyone was able to park for free.

3 It is denied that the claimant's signage that sets out the terms was displayed in an effective manner,
Looking to understand she she possibly got a ticket, the defendant returned to the car park a week later at the time of issue (9pm) the defendant found:

3.1 No artificial lighting was present in the car park, the defendant at the time of issue was unable to see the signs showing terms and conditions for XXX car park as it was dark.

3.2 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 is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily.

3.3 It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.!

3.4 on the 11th February 2016, xxxxx town council, the landowner, Discussed and approved a proposal by Premier Park Limited to Install a pay and display meter and make changes to signage, the issues the public found with inadequate signage are recorded in the agenda and minutes for that meeting.

4.The Claim Form issued on the xxxxxxxx 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 Civil Enforcement Limited 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.

No standing or landowner authority!

5. 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.

No legitimate interest or commercial justification!


Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

6. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

6.1. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

6.2. The!Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis!case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in!Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

6.3. It is trite law that non-existent and untrue 'legal costs' are also unrecoverable. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.!

6.4. According to!Ladak v DRC Locums!UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.!

6.5. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) 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' (and 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.

6.6. Court Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.

(a) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

(b) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstone’s' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model. The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. The judgment for these three example cases 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. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in!ParkingEye 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...''

6.7. 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.

6.8.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.!

6.9. 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.!




I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date



If you're still reading thanks.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Did the Claim Form come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

countdowniscool

Hi Keith

It is Northampton, 17th July

beamerguy

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 reasonable calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

You need to extend this by using coupon-mad's text as shown in post # 14

Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal&highlight=abuse+of+process

countdowniscool

Thanks beamerguy, that is impressive

KeithP

countdowniscool wrote: »

It is Northampton, 17th July.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th July, you have until Monday 5th August to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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.

Le_Kirk

Have a look at some of the defences (17) posted in NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and adapt one of them to suit your circumstances. Evidence and narrative about what happened on the day comes later at Witness Statement and evidence stage. Defences should be legal/technical arguments.

countdowniscool

Thanks KeithP, Beamerguy and Le_kirk.

Hopefully I have listened properly and changed the defense appropriately, I have removed what i think would be evidence and witness statements and I have copied coupon-mads text verbatim (thanks coupon-mad). Does it look as it should do now??

I have done the AoS and its been acknowledged. I get the impression you know your onions KeithP, knowing the claim came from Northampton.

KeithP

Nothing to do with my onions, it's just that 99.9%* of all the County Court Claims we see here come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton. It's some time since we saw a claim from elsewhere, but it is possible and it would be silly to assume anything.




*an unaudited figure which anyone is free to challenge.