Could anyone assist with my defence against BW Legal for a parking fine? Don't mind paying for help

Owlius

Hello.

I’d be grateful if any of you could help me with a defence against BW Legal for a private parking fine dating back to 2016.

I drove into the Sheridan Centre in Stafford looking for a place to park to wait for my partner, but decided on sitting in the car park (not in a bay), since I didn’t have change and wasn’t planning to leave my car.

I did not consider that staying put and being outside of a bay constituted “parking” and thought that I was safe on this basis.
I was probably there for 15 – 20 mins, and the car park was fairly empty so I did not have to move due to obstruction at any point, which also guarantees I have not caused Britannia a loss by taking up unpaid space.
I remained in the car and did not switch off the engine.

Coming on 3 years later I was contacted by BW Legal who have (on request) sent me pictures of my car entering and leaving the car park, and are demanding £253.66 to settle the unpaid PCN (original charge was £160 to Britannia).

Fast forward a little, I now have a couple of weeks left to respond to their Letter of Claim.

I have a defence here, and wondered whether anyone could help me incorporate the fact that I didn’t park in a bay, or leave the car at any point, if this is at all relevant?

If anyone could go over this for me and let me know if I’m making any mistakes or what my chances of winning are, I’d be very grateful and wouldn’t mind paying you something for your time.

Many thanks.





1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at the Sheridan Centre, Stafford, in 2016.

2. The defendant denies a breach of contract, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'. 

3. Pre-action protocol was not adhered to, as no evidence of claim was supplied with the LBCCC, not allowing the defendant to determine whether the claim was legitimate.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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.

5. Due to the sparseness of particulars of claim, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within the parking bays, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked'.

7. The terms and conditions 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. Particularly in relation to the entrance sign, which is inadequate in size and prominence, mounted high up, out of the drivers' line of sight. It is, therefore denied that the Claimant's signage can create a legally binding contract.

8. i addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and conditions, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.  Such costs are not permitted (CPR 27.14).

9. 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.

10. 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, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Signed

Dated

KeithP

Just to clarify... to date you have only received a Letter of Claim? You have not yet received a County Court Claim Form, is that right?

Egbert_Nobacon

Please immediately edit your post.
The DRIVER entered the car park whilst the KEEPER has received the court papers - 2 different people.

What was the date of the alleged transgression and issue date of the NTK ?

Not parking in a bay or causing no loss won’t work.

Go to the NEWBIES (one click back, third thread down) read carefully and you will find example defences to suit your case.

Also include this from Coupon-mad:-




Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, 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. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
The Judge 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...''

- 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.

- 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.

Number paragraphs appropriately.



Also remove the payment for help offer - you will get free advice here so don’t respond to any private messages as they will probably be scams.

Itsjustsammy19

I had a similar thing happen to me. In 2010 my boyfriend (at the time) borrowed my car for a meal with friends and parked it in a car park which was quite dark and no clear indication that you had to pay. I get parking notices through from Excel, each more demanding but I ignored them after doing some research on them online and the letters stopped after 6 months. Fast forward 6 years and I started getting letters from BW Legal saying that excel has passed the outstanding fine onto them. After 3 letters I went to get legal advice from citizens advice and they said it was non enforceable especially after so long BUT they told me not to reply to the letters at all as you would then be acknowledging them and therefore taking some accountability. So they could then persue you for a claim

KeithP

Owlius, you are strongly advised not to follow the route that Itsjustsammy19 seems to be suggesting.

In other words, you should not ignore anything from this point onwards.

Quentin

@OP

Now you have offered to pay for assistance please take great care over any contacts you get offering assistance.

There are lurkers here with different agendas

Don't contact anyone who isn't a regular poster with lots of posts (say over 1000 or more)

You are unlikely to get better help by paying, and definitely don't be tempted to pay any commercial company you come across offering to get rid of this for you

See their reviews at trustpilot!!

waamo

Itsjustsammy19 wrote: »

I had a similar thing happen to me. In 2010 my boyfriend (at the time) borrowed my car for a meal with friends and parked it in a car park which was quite dark and no clear indication that you had to pay. I get parking notices through from Excel, each more demanding but I ignored them after doing some research on them online and the letters stopped after 6 months. Fast forward 6 years and I started getting letters from BW Legal saying that excel has passed the outstanding fine onto them. After 3 letters I went to get legal advice from citizens advice and they said it was non enforceable especially after so long BUT they told me not to reply to the letters at all as you would then be acknowledging them and therefore taking some accountability. So they could then persue you for a claim

Debts become statute barred after 6 years. That's the limitation for taking a case to court in England and Wales. The op needs to get on top of this though as it's well within time.

Redx

Post #1 still needs editing

And a court claim pack is not a letter of claim

Confirm that you have received a court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton and post the issue date from the top right of the claim form below

The_Deep

I had a similar thing happen to me. In 2010 blah blah blah ...

Ignore, that was a couple of years before the law (POFA) was enacted.

However, as nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, 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

Coming on 3 years later THE KEEPER was contacted by BW Legal who have (on request) sent me pictures of THE car entering and leaving the car park, and are demanding £253.66 to settle the unpaid PCN (original charge was £160 to Britannia).

You never owed Britannia £160 ..... only £100

BWLegal have added their own scam amount of £60 on top

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

Umkomaas

I did not consider that staying put and being outside of a bay constituted “parking” and thought that I was safe on this basis.
I was probably there for 15 – 20 mins, and the car park was fairly empty so I did not have to move due to obstruction at any point, which also guarantees I have not caused Britannia a loss by taking up unpaid space.
I remained in the car and did not switch off the engine.

That's parking! Why does this urban myth persist, allowing the PPC network to gorge on the ignorance?