BW Legal - Notice of County Court Claim issued for £265.70

1505grandad

The fact you are quoting "Ladak v DRC Locums" shows you are using old Abuse of Process paras.

See post #14 in the AoP thread for the required paras and instructions:-

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

KeithP

POFA Paragraph 9 determines that certain conditions are met regarding wording and timescales, these conditions were not met.

I would suggest that that sentence in paragraph 4 needs expanding greatly.

In my opinion it needs to state exactly how the wording (what wording? on what document?) falls short.

It needs to say what is wrong with the timescales, and where.

SWB

Thanks both, very much appreciated. I left it too late and have to send the pack tomorrow so I will adjust both of these points and send unless I receive anything else to change, thanks

SWB

1505grandad wrote: »

The fact you are quoting "Ladak v DRC Locums" shows you are using old Abuse of Process paras.

See post #14 in the AoP thread for the required paras and instructions:-

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

Ref to Ladak removed and I will reread the Abuse of Power again later, thank you

Umkomaas

SWB wrote: »

Ref to Ladak removed and I will reread the Abuse of Power again later, thank you

Try the Abuse of Process thread.

SWB

KeithP wrote: »

I would suggest that that sentence in paragraph 4 needs expanding greatly.

In my opinion it needs to state exactly how the wording (what wording? on what document?) falls short.

It needs to say what is wrong with the timescales, and where.

Updated to:
5. The signage at the car park is insufficient, fails in every respect of approved BPA Code of Practice requirements and does not form a contract. I have asked the Claimant to provide photographs of the entrance signs and the signs within the Car Park along with a map showing the location of every sign, nothing has been received.

(a) The single entrance sign was neither large enough to be seen and read from the road by a driver and did not contain any of the mandatory wording required by the BPA Code of Practice (Exhibit 7 (a) and the minimal text written on the sign was not large enough to be read (Exhibit 7 (c)
This Car Park changed from servicing three different Supermarkets over the years and from information I sourced on Google Maps, there are neither clear entrance and interior signs either before or after the alleged offence (Exhibit 4 in November 2013 and Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6 in August 2016) so I very much doubt there were clear and sufficient signs in 2015 and would once again, ask the Claimant to provide evidence to the contrary.

(b) There are minimal signs inside the car park (Ex. 5 in 2016). Too few signs, placed too high with small text making it extremely difficult to notice and read, once again, I ask the Claimant to provide evidence to the contrary. The sign sizes, text sizing and wording are all in breach of the BPA Code of Practice Appendix B (Exhibit 7).

(b) There were none of the mandatory wording in Exhibit 7 (b) on the entrance sign.

(c ) The text size is supposed to be a minimum of 60mm in order to be read, Exhibit 4 shows that the text was one third of the height of a standard brick which measures 65mm so the text was no larger than 20mm, a third of the size and definitely not readable from a distance.

(d) The parking charge is hidden within the small print, it is not a clear and prominent charge and was never 'bound to' have been seen, as in the ‘Beavis’ case. (Exhibit 8)

SWB

...and I see I have just expanded and updated Paragraph 4 and not Paragraph 5, I will work on that now
Thanks

KeithP

I would also suggest that those (a) (b) (c) sub-paras be removed.

So in your most recent post, para 4(a) becomes para 5, para 4(b) becomes para 6, para 4(c) becomes para 7, etc.

Obviously subsequent paragraphs also need renumbering.

Le_Kirk

6. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving

How will DVLA know who was driving? The purpose was surely to find the name and address of the Registered Keeper. Having received that the PPC can enquire of the RK who was driving but of course the RK is under no obligation to name the driver.

SWB

Le_Kirk wrote: »

How will DVLA know who was driving? The purpose was surely to find the name and address of the Registered Keeper. Having received that the PPC can enquire of the RK who was driving but of course the RK is under no obligation to name the driver.

Yes, this could have been worded better, thanks Le Kirk