We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
BWL Legal Claim Form / Wrong VRN Entered
4Sure
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hi All,
I have received a Court Claim claim made by BW legal for Premier Park. The letter was dated 16th July, but I work out of the country so only opened it on 8th August. I immediately Acknowledged service and a telephone call to the County Court Business Centre confirmed that though I was late the acknowledgment stands.
The short of it is over four years ago the driver of the vehicles daughter misunderstood the instructions at the PDT and attempted to enter the word 'REGISTRATION' instead of the vehicle registration (thankfully she excels in sports). We supplied the ticket, Premier Park agreed the same entry had been made into the machine at that time, but still went ahead with the PCN. Even an appeal to POPLA failed, though this may have more to do with my slightly naive appeal.
Anyway, I have written a Defence, I'm sure most of it will be recognisable and please bear in mind that this is a lot of information to deal with for a newbie. I would very much appreciated any comments/advice.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Premier Park Limited (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXX XXXX (Defendant)
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 XXXX XXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, but not the driver, was parked on the material day correctly and within a designated bay, a ticket was purchased from a Pay and Display Terminal (PDT) by the drivers daughter and there was no overstay. Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) of the vehicle in question was not entered correctly into the PDT. The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff to cover the parking was paid.
3. Proof of payment, in the form of a photograph of the purchased ticket, was supplied to the Claimant at the ‘independent’ appeals process (POPLA) and as demonstrated later the Claimant acknowledge that it existed by providing a system print out verifying this entry.
4. The PCN stated the contravention as 'Parking Session Expired or Unpaid' and this contravention is denied. The Defendant denies liability for the purported parking charge or penalty, not least because a correct parking charge or tariff, sufficient to cover the period of parking, had been paid.
5. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach. In this case the drivers’ daughter entered the word ‘REGISTRAT’ instead of the VRN of the vehicle, believing she was following the instruction on the sign stating ‘Please enter full, correct vehicle registration’.
6. The principle of de minimis applies here, namely that this is a legal action for technical breaches of rules or agreements where the impact of the breach is negligible.
7. The drivers daughter paid for a ticket that appropriately covered the time period that the car was parked. The Claimant's own response during the ‘independent’ POPLA appeals process stated on the print out of the claimants ‘Log showing payment made by appellant’, also acknowledging that the claimant believes the ticket was purchased for the vehicle in question and the untrue allegation of "Parking Session Expired or Unpaid" is denied.
8. Given the fact that the ANPR data did not match with a payment made, an automated PCN was issued. It was within the gift of the Claimant to ensure before starting enforcement at any site, that their systems are fit for purpose, providing the necessary safeguards to protect against misinterpretation and failure to enter a valid DVLA vehicle registration. A PCN in these circumstances is completely foreseeable by a professional parking firm, and it is averred that this punitive charge relies upon the Claimant's own data being wrong at the outset.
9. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that it made any effort to conduct a 'common sense check’ of payments made against corresponding ANPR images prior to issuing the PCN, relying purely on a flawed automated system. In A telephone Conversation between the Defendant and the Claimant, the Claimant acknowledged that it was clear that a mistake had been made but the PCN cannot be stopped as the Claimant had already incurred costs by starting the process.
10. It should be evident that the conduct of the Defendant should not have caused the penalty to arise and the Claimant could not reasonably lay any blame with the Defendant, for a failure of their own system. The charge offends against the reasonable and statutory expectations of trader/consumer relations requiring 'open dealing' and the doctrine of good faith.
11. 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. The Signage on the entrance to the car park does not mention any terms or conditions other than to ‘pay for your stay’.
12. At the entrance the car park the signage does not specify that the driver of the vehicle must be the one using the ticket machines and therefore does not specify the requirements of the individual they intend to enter into a contract with. As such the driver of the vehicle cannot understand the terms in which they are being subjected to on entering and make the relevant decisions based on this information.
13. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, 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, the driver of the vehicle, or the drivers daughter entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
14. The Claimant will no doubt hope to convince the court that a 'relevant contract' existed and was breached. As this would be a consumer contract, it must be 'fair' and 'transparent' as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
15. According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any goods purchased must be ‘fit for purpose’. The Ticket that was issued was not ‘fit for purpose’ The Claimant took the Defendant’s money to issue an invalid ticket and now seeks to charge the Defendant a penalty for having an invalid ticket.
16. Furthermore, as the drivers Fourteen-year-old daughter had entered the details into the PDT, the claimant has entered into an alleged contract with a minor. As the child is older than seven years of age this is perfectly legitimate and by using the PDT she has shown intent to form a contract. However, the defendant believes she did not understand the implications of the contract.
17. There is an assumption made by the law that a minor cannot fully understand the implications of a contract. If a minor is assumed not to understand the implications of a contract a minor will remain fully protected by the law even if this is to the disadvantage of the other party and regardless of what clauses have been inserted into the contract. As such A parent or guardian will not be liable for their child’s contract unless they act as their agent, which is not the case here, and that a minor’s contract cannot be validated by consent or authorisation of their parent or guardian.
18. 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 on the notice to keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an accrual of interest of £29.10 plus an additional £60 for which no calculation or explanation is given which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
19. It is the Defendant's case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing the Defendant for a hugely disproportionate penalty when it has been proven that payment was actually made.
20. The Defendant asserts that the costs that the Claimant is attempting to claim are disproportionate and disingenuous.
21. 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.
22. The purported 'legal representative’s costs' of £50 are disputable. 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 contends that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this cut & paste claim.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. The Claimant has never demonstrated to the Defendant that they are in fact authorised to pursue this matter through the courts.
26. 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.
27. It is the Defendants belief that the impending implementation of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, has encouraged the private parking firms, such as the Claimant, to vigorously pursue court actions in an attempt to make their business practices pay, before they are regulated out of existence. This belief extends from the fact that they have chosen to pursue the Defendant for an alleged infraction for over four years and there is evidence on-line that the Claimant, in association with their solicitors, have massively increased the number of cases they chose to pursue through the courts earlier this year.
28. 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.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Thanks for taking the time to read this (not part of the Defence)
4Sure
I have received a Court Claim claim made by BW legal for Premier Park. The letter was dated 16th July, but I work out of the country so only opened it on 8th August. I immediately Acknowledged service and a telephone call to the County Court Business Centre confirmed that though I was late the acknowledgment stands.
The short of it is over four years ago the driver of the vehicles daughter misunderstood the instructions at the PDT and attempted to enter the word 'REGISTRATION' instead of the vehicle registration (thankfully she excels in sports). We supplied the ticket, Premier Park agreed the same entry had been made into the machine at that time, but still went ahead with the PCN. Even an appeal to POPLA failed, though this may have more to do with my slightly naive appeal.
Anyway, I have written a Defence, I'm sure most of it will be recognisable and please bear in mind that this is a lot of information to deal with for a newbie. I would very much appreciated any comments/advice.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: xxxxxx
BETWEEN:
Premier Park Limited (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXX XXXX (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 XXXX XXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, but not the driver, was parked on the material day correctly and within a designated bay, a ticket was purchased from a Pay and Display Terminal (PDT) by the drivers daughter and there was no overstay. Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) of the vehicle in question was not entered correctly into the PDT. The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff to cover the parking was paid.
3. Proof of payment, in the form of a photograph of the purchased ticket, was supplied to the Claimant at the ‘independent’ appeals process (POPLA) and as demonstrated later the Claimant acknowledge that it existed by providing a system print out verifying this entry.
4. The PCN stated the contravention as 'Parking Session Expired or Unpaid' and this contravention is denied. The Defendant denies liability for the purported parking charge or penalty, not least because a correct parking charge or tariff, sufficient to cover the period of parking, had been paid.
5. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach. In this case the drivers’ daughter entered the word ‘REGISTRAT’ instead of the VRN of the vehicle, believing she was following the instruction on the sign stating ‘Please enter full, correct vehicle registration’.
6. The principle of de minimis applies here, namely that this is a legal action for technical breaches of rules or agreements where the impact of the breach is negligible.
7. The drivers daughter paid for a ticket that appropriately covered the time period that the car was parked. The Claimant's own response during the ‘independent’ POPLA appeals process stated on the print out of the claimants ‘Log showing payment made by appellant’, also acknowledging that the claimant believes the ticket was purchased for the vehicle in question and the untrue allegation of "Parking Session Expired or Unpaid" is denied.
8. Given the fact that the ANPR data did not match with a payment made, an automated PCN was issued. It was within the gift of the Claimant to ensure before starting enforcement at any site, that their systems are fit for purpose, providing the necessary safeguards to protect against misinterpretation and failure to enter a valid DVLA vehicle registration. A PCN in these circumstances is completely foreseeable by a professional parking firm, and it is averred that this punitive charge relies upon the Claimant's own data being wrong at the outset.
9. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that it made any effort to conduct a 'common sense check’ of payments made against corresponding ANPR images prior to issuing the PCN, relying purely on a flawed automated system. In A telephone Conversation between the Defendant and the Claimant, the Claimant acknowledged that it was clear that a mistake had been made but the PCN cannot be stopped as the Claimant had already incurred costs by starting the process.
10. It should be evident that the conduct of the Defendant should not have caused the penalty to arise and the Claimant could not reasonably lay any blame with the Defendant, for a failure of their own system. The charge offends against the reasonable and statutory expectations of trader/consumer relations requiring 'open dealing' and the doctrine of good faith.
11. 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. The Signage on the entrance to the car park does not mention any terms or conditions other than to ‘pay for your stay’.
12. At the entrance the car park the signage does not specify that the driver of the vehicle must be the one using the ticket machines and therefore does not specify the requirements of the individual they intend to enter into a contract with. As such the driver of the vehicle cannot understand the terms in which they are being subjected to on entering and make the relevant decisions based on this information.
13. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, 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, the driver of the vehicle, or the drivers daughter entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
14. The Claimant will no doubt hope to convince the court that a 'relevant contract' existed and was breached. As this would be a consumer contract, it must be 'fair' and 'transparent' as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
15. According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any goods purchased must be ‘fit for purpose’. The Ticket that was issued was not ‘fit for purpose’ The Claimant took the Defendant’s money to issue an invalid ticket and now seeks to charge the Defendant a penalty for having an invalid ticket.
16. Furthermore, as the drivers Fourteen-year-old daughter had entered the details into the PDT, the claimant has entered into an alleged contract with a minor. As the child is older than seven years of age this is perfectly legitimate and by using the PDT she has shown intent to form a contract. However, the defendant believes she did not understand the implications of the contract.
17. There is an assumption made by the law that a minor cannot fully understand the implications of a contract. If a minor is assumed not to understand the implications of a contract a minor will remain fully protected by the law even if this is to the disadvantage of the other party and regardless of what clauses have been inserted into the contract. As such A parent or guardian will not be liable for their child’s contract unless they act as their agent, which is not the case here, and that a minor’s contract cannot be validated by consent or authorisation of their parent or guardian.
18. 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 on the notice to keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an accrual of interest of £29.10 plus an additional £60 for which no calculation or explanation is given which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
19. It is the Defendant's case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing the Defendant for a hugely disproportionate penalty when it has been proven that payment was actually made.
20. The Defendant asserts that the costs that the Claimant is attempting to claim are disproportionate and disingenuous.
21. 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.
22. The purported 'legal representative’s costs' of £50 are disputable. 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 contends that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this cut & paste claim.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. The Claimant has never demonstrated to the Defendant that they are in fact authorised to pursue this matter through the courts.
26. 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.
27. It is the Defendants belief that the impending implementation of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, has encouraged the private parking firms, such as the Claimant, to vigorously pursue court actions in an attempt to make their business practices pay, before they are regulated out of existence. This belief extends from the fact that they have chosen to pursue the Defendant for an alleged infraction for over four years and there is evidence on-line that the Claimant, in association with their solicitors, have massively increased the number of cases they chose to pursue through the courts earlier this year.
28. 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.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Thanks for taking the time to read this (not part of the Defence)
4Sure
0
Comments
-
Is 16th July the Issue Date on your Claim Form? Please confirm.I have received a Court Claim claim made by BW legal for Premier Park. The letter was dated 16th July, but I work out of the country so only opened it on 8th August. I immediately Acknowledged service and a telephone call to the County Court Business Centre confirmed that though I was late the acknowledgment stands.
If so, then having done the Acknowledgement of Service, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th August 2019 to file your Defence.
That's one week away. Plenty of time to produce a 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.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- 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'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
- Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
Yes, the letter is dated the 16th July
4Sure0 -
Clearly you have read what's going on nowadays
A wrong VRN is such a trivial point and the courts must be fed up with the rubbish claims that BWLegal bring.
BWLegal wastes the courts time especially with their ABUSE OF PROCESS0 -
The Issue date is the 16th July
4Sure0 -
Sorry, but this made me spit my tea out!the driver of the vehicles daughter misunderstood the instructions at the PDT and attempted to enter the word 'REGISTRATION' instead of the vehicle registration (thankfully she excels in sports).
:TPRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Just to follow up on this post, the case was eventually transferred to my local court, where the judge ordered the claimant to
"file and serve a reply to the defence (which raises new facts and matters)"
The same day BW Legal filed a notice of discontinuance.
A hollow victory considering the prolonged scare tactics used by Premier Park and BW Legal will result in no repercussions for them, but a victory anyway.
For anyone else subjected to the same kind of tactics, don't give up, these companies are pretty toothless and standing firm will hopefully result in the same outcome for you.
4Sure0 -
Well done, a win is a win, no matter how hollow!0
-
Premier/BWL are discontinuing left, right and centre, indicating that this was no more than the extension of the scam to extort money.
But I wonder just how many have been totally intimidated and capitulated? Many more than the number of cases discontinued I bet. Therefore a successful strategy for Premier/BWL, given that all who were served proceedings previously had no intention of paying.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
A hollow victory considering the prolonged scare tactics used by Premier Park and BW Legal will result in no repercussions for them,
That ball is in your court, there is nothing to stop you going after them for the time that they have wasted, stationery, mileage, etc. The approved court rate for time is £19 an hour plus £1 a sheet for photocopying and 45 pence per mile. .
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/
If you do decide to do this study the abuse of process thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP after the election, as it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT][/FONT]You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.1K Spending & Discounts
- 243K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards