BPS / BW Legal Claim Form - Invalid Permit

Fenners79

I have been studying this forum and read up on the newbies section but cannot seem to find a comparable case to mine, so any help or clarification would be hugely appreciated.

My wife was given a parking fine whilst parked in a private car park under a block of flat where a family member lived on Dec 2017. She was parked correctly and correctly displaying a visitors permit issued by the office of the flat complex. At the time we checked the parking company, Bristol Parking Services LTD (BPS) website and there was a photo of my car with the pass visible but not clear enough to see any details. I did not upload or copy these photos unfortunately. My wife did try and try to contact BPS but was never able to speak to anyone and in the end left a message advising the ticket was unfair and we would not be paying quoting the reference number in the communication and hoping this would be the end of it. Later we received communication again from the BPS raising the fine to £160 then a debt collection agency DCBL all of which were ignored. In March 2019 we received communication from BW Legal again increasing the fine to £176! I wrote a complaint using Resolver but never received a response and have now escalated this, but heard nothing. I have now 20th August 2019 received a claim form on behalf of BPS and BW Legal with a total amount of £247. As stated earlier I’ve read up as much as possible on the newbies and other threads so have sent an SAR requesting full details and explanation of why the permit was not valid to BPS and returned the AOS declaring I intend to defend the claim but am not sure what my next step should be or if I have even acted correctly up until now.

My understanding is I now need to send a defense on the basis that my permit was valid but cannot find similar cases to use their defense so any help or pointing me in right direction would be greatly appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for visitors permit defence and change to SHOW POSTS.

It really is that easy.

KeithP

Fenners79 wrote: »

I have now 20th August 2019 received a claim form...

You say you received a claim form on 20th August, but what is the Issue Date on that Claim Form?

Fenners79 wrote: »

...and returned the AOS declaring I intend to defend the claim...

If you did the AoS by post, would strongly suggest you do it again online. Post does go missing or get misfiled, especially inside large organisations.

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.

beamerguy

I have now 20th August 2019 received a claim form on behalf of BPS and BW Legal with a total amount of £247.

A FAKE AMOUNT because BWLegal have addeed on a fake £60

Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

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

POFA2012 is the law .....
This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4

BWLegal are flaunting the law

The_Deep

These are not fines, they are private invoices for the damage the PPC alleges they suffered when, allegedly, you breached a contract they allege you had agreed with them, we call them scams. They only need to be paid if a judge so directs,

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

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.

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

Fenners79

Thank you so much for all the feedback, it has been very useful and interesting. This forum whilst may seem simple to all the legally minded contributors is quite daunting.
I have prepared my defence and will get that off in the next couple of days, it seems that exhaustive detail may not be the best approach and can result in defences that are far too long. I have based this on a basic 'Bargepole' type format and have altered the details to suit my case. If anybody has any feedback it would be greatly appreciated. I assume that requesting strict proof regarding the signage is standard method of attack as I have not been able to check this but included it anyway.

CLAIM No:

BETWEEN

(Claimant)

and

My name (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 V#####N of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date #####/2017 and had a valid temporary parking permit to be parked at T###### Bristol.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) however the Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 not park in the no parking zones, giving no definition of where the no parking zones are nor indicating which zones are suitable parking zones as there are no road markings set out.

6. 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. Furthermore there is no signage upon the entrance. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

8. 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 £60. The claim includes an additional £187.26, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. 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. Please refer to claim number F0DP201T District Judge Taylor Southampton Court, 10th June 2019.

9. 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.

NAME

DATE

KeithP

Can you please answer the question I asked earlier:

KeithP wrote: »

You say you received a claim form on 20th August, but what is the Issue Date on that Claim Form?

Fenners79

Hello Keith P, apologies for The issue date on the claim form was 20th August, it states that the date of service should be considered as 5 days after this. I submitted the AOS electronically to ensure proof and understand I now have until the 22nd Sep to submit my defence. Does this seem correct?

KeithP

Fenners79 wrote: »

Hello Keith P, apologies for The issue date on the claim form was 20th August, it states that the date of service should be considered as 5 days after this. I submitted the AOS electronically to ensure proof and understand I now have until the 22nd Sep to submit my defence. Does this seem correct?

You target date is almost right but as 22nd September is a Sunday you have until 4pm on the next working day to file your Defence.


With a Claim Issue Date of 20th August, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 23rd September 2019 to file your Defence.


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.

The_Deep

Have you read these?

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/own-parking-space/

Does your relative's lease/AST give him/her primacy of contract over a scammers ill-conceived and probably unlawful T&Cs?

If so then the scammer would be extremely unwise to take this to court.

Coupon-mad

#8 can be expanded with additional para numbers (PLEASE add them!!) to include the words I wrote in post #14 of beamerguy's ABUSE OF PROCESS thread, as we have more to say about the fake costs than just the Southampton case.

Typo here, copied from a known typo so it wasn't you, but needs correcting:

prorpietary