BWlegal - county court business centre letter - HELP

physiodoc3

Hi all,

I have had ticket in doncaster and I paid alittle over the required payment cant remember how much now. I parked for one hr and came about 15 minutes late. I got a parking fine for parking on 13/3/2018 for leaving about 15 minutes late. I followed all the forums and copied the templates and wrote back to them. They kept quiet for a long time and now on the 19th of Augs sent me a county court business centre claim form asking to pay £255.84 in total . I read the posts on here so now I am about to send of the 1) aknowledgement of service form (which allows me 28 days from the 19th of August to prepare my defense and also send back the claim for ticking that I dispute the full amount claimed. I also didnt put anything in the defence.. I tried searching for a defense on here but can;t find one. Can someone urgently help please. cant believe they have decided to take me to court! HELP PLEASE.

Coupon-mad

I tried searching for a defense on here but can;t find one.

What?

We have 17 examples linked in the NEWBIES thread, and new defences posted every hour on any claim thread you stop to read.

What's the date issued on the top right of your claim?

Who is the Claimant? It's not BW Legal.

physiodoc3

the issue date is the 19th of August and the claimant was National Car parks Limited. this happened last year

Coupon-mad

OK, so when you how us your draft defence then we can help.

If this was a pay & display site and you paid for an hour, simply search the forum for NCP HMRC green button defence

KeithP

physiodoc3 wrote: »

the issue date is the 19th of August...

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th August, you have until Monday 9th September 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 23rd September 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks 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 could 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.

physiodoc3

Thanks guys, I have found out how to send back the acknowledgement letter and the defence letter without putting anything on it. I will send the defence separately to the court I guess?

just to put you in the loop. The last letter I sent them before the issued court claim form was this:

Dear BWlegal.

You have failed to provide all the information that I requested in my previous letter dated 8/8/2018. You are now patronising me and harassing me. This is now unwarranted harassment and your client is causing significant distress to me and my family.

It is important that you now stop contacting me pretending you are wanting to 'help' discuss an ''affordable payment arrangement'' for a debt that does not exist. How dare you demand that I complete details of my income and expenditure, for a fake charge from a notorious ex-clamper, propped up by you, a shameful robo-claim legal firm who were named and shamed in Parliament a few months ago.

You failed to fully provide (underlined):
“4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
You mentioned the claim was for parking longer than the time paid for yet you failed to provide me with the following information: how much was paid? For how long? Was there an over payment made to cover the time period that went over ? how long did the vehicle overstayed for?

Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd has no application in a case that does not involve employer/employee vicarious liability and has been debunked in dozens of Excel/VCS cases, as you well know. I refer you to Launchbury v Morgans (1972), a case heard in the House of Lords.

This continued contact and demands for money from a person who is not liable in law, is a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect my peace of mind and that of my family, distracting me from my work and my daily life. Hours of my time have already been wasted on this matter, only to receive more threatening and misleading letters with ever increasing sums of money. The entire rogue ticketing operation and the constant bombardment of legalese and threatening letters indicates a course of unwarranted harassment in pursuit of money I do not owe to anyone.

I also suffer from a chronic pain condition and the stress and anxiety caused by all this is making my symptoms worse. I have seen two consultant specialists regarding my pain on the 15th of August 2018 (Mr. Marcus Green – Priory hospital Birmingham) and another on the 18th of August 2018 (Mr. G. Solanki – priory hospital Birmingham) both privately. A chronic condition likely to last more than 12 months means I have a protected characteristic as defined within the Equality Act 2010 (the EA), and you and your client are making it worse. Harassment of a person who meets the definition of disability under the EA is specifically illegal within the statute under section 26:

LINK here but cant post it on here system dont allow

This baseless but nasty financial attack on me is causing me serious distress (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd.[2009] EWCA Civ 46 is the authority in such a case). Should your client proceed, I will have no hesitation in seeking my full costs on the indemnity basis, and will invite the Court to dismiss the claim and to award such Defence witness costs as are permissible, pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Stop writing misleading letters. Stop writing any letters. Your client has no cause of action against me.

Take formal note, and tell your clients: This is a formal cease and desist letter, and a Section 10 notice under the DPA. You and your client must now stop processing my data and delete it from your records after cancelling the meritless 'charge' you are chasing, to my huge distress.

If your client proceeds to court, I will file a counter-claim in excess of the sum your client is unreasonably demanding, seeking Vidall Hall compensation for my distress that I am noting and recounting to family and friends on a week-by-week basis, as evidence to support my position. The unwelcome and detrimental effect on my chronic pain condition can be shown by evidence from my GP, to have flared up as a result of your unreasonable and unwarranted demands, and I will have no hesitation in seeking the full amount of damages the Judge sees fit to award.

I am aware of the following two cases in the past year:

- on Friday 16th March, in case D8HW7G7P in the Slough County Court, another notorious ex-clamper parking firm (UKPC) lost an unreasonable claim against a beleaguered motorist and were found liable for the Defendant's ordinary costs and his £500 counter-claim for distress for a DPA breach by processing his data contrary to the Data Protection Principles.

- in May 2017, in case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne, a motorist was awarded £900 because another ex-clamper parking company of the same type as your client (in this case, Civil Enforcement Limited) committed data protection breaches against him. Mr B. was the vehicle keeper but was not the driver on the day. As the NTK was not POFA compliant (same as your client's NTK), the parking firm had no valid claim against the keeper. In addition, Wright Hassall (mirroring the conduct of BW Legal's robo-claim modus operandi) had acted unreasonably in artificially inflating the claim from £100 to £300 by adding spurious amounts.

Mr B filed a counterclaim and this was upheld. In his judgment, DJ Osborne ruled a data breach had occurred, the tort of damages was applicable and that £500 was not an unreasonable amount in the circumstances. He added an additional £405 in costs, part of which were awarded on the indemnity basis, under rule 27.14.2(g) for the unreasonable behaviour of CEL. The Judge also stated he was disappointed in the claimant bringing an unfounded case, and in the behaviour of Wright Hassall who were otherwise a respectable law firm.

I urge you to avoid the same, and confirm this charge is immediately cancelled and my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you and your clients.

yours faithfully,

physiodoc3

So having looked around on the newbies site section 2 I managed to compile a defense for the court below.


The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe 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.

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, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

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.

At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
Claimant's principal.

6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

The POFA, 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 £80.84, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

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.

Please advise.

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

You have no headings or numbering except for a random 6.2. Maybe due to copying from word? If so, don't do that or MSE can glitch & block you from posting.

physiodoc3

Sorry,

Yep I was copying from word. Sorry about that.

Coupon-mad

OK but avoid doing that as you will be stranded & unable to post for days!

physiodoc3

Any help guys with my defense letter above? Thanks