BPS / BW Legal Claim Form - Invalid Permit

Fenners79

Thanks for the clarification Keith P, as a point of interest though BW Legal have in the last week sent me 2 letters and phoned me saying to contact them by 30 September to discuss. It sounds like this would have meant I would completely ruin my chance of defending the case. Could be a typo from BW Legal but somehow I suspect not.

KeithP

Fenners79 wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification Keith P, as a point of interest though BW Legal have in the last week sent me 2 letters and phoned me saying to contact them by 30 September to discuss. It sounds like this would have meant I would completely ruin my chance of defending the case. Could be a typo from BW Legal but somehow I suspect not.

Did BWL say something like "if you haven't filed a Defence by 30 September, we'll seek a CCJ"?

They are of course allowed to say that, but don't think you have a few extra days.

As I said earlier...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 23rd September 2019 to file your Defence.

Do not miss that filing deadline.

Fenners79

Thanks 'coupon-mad' I've been reading through this thread, quite heavy going but interesting. Just to clarify your point though are you suggesting that I add all the points you make in #14 or just use some of it to help elaborate the point in section 8.

beamerguy

fenners79 wrote: »

just to clarify your point though are you suggesting that i add all the points you make in #14 or just use some of it to help elaborate the point in section 8.

yes ... 100%

Fenners79

[FONT=&quot]Hello again Beamerguy and Keith P. I have updated 'section 8' of my defence and was hoping for a quick glance over by you both if possible but if not I appreciate all the help you've already given me. On further reviewing my immense paperwork pile I noted that my original fine was £100 on the NTK not £60, the £60 was only on the original ticket placed on the car.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When this defence is received by the county court, what is the next step? Some kind of decision there and then based upon the points raised or do I need to start preparing a witness statement and potentially have to go to court?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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 £100. The claim includes an additional £147.26, 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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]8.1. Please refer to claim number F0DP201T District Judge Taylor Southampton Court, 10th June 2019[/FONT][FONT=&quot], echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of District Judge 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: District Judge Taylor stated: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"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 judgement 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".[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]8.2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]8.3. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

''Upon it being recorded that Distract Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]8.4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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 untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

8.5.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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.6. 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.[/FONT]

KeithP

Fenners79 wrote: »

When this defence is received by the county court, what is the next step? Some kind of decision there and then based upon the points raised or do I need to start preparing a witness statement and potentially have to go to court?

I had hoped that items 7 and 8 in the list i post #9 above went some way towards answering those questions.

You need to be reading post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, in particular Bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from there.

Le_Kirk

When this defence is received by the county court, what is the next step? Some kind of decision there and then based upon the points raised or do I need to start preparing a witness statement and potentially have to go to court?

You are sending the defence to the CCBC. which is not a court but a business centre. They send your defence to the claimant, who then decides if they wish to continue and, if so, you will receive a DQ in which you......... but wait a minute, all this is explained in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 in Bargepole's link What Happens and When. Check that out and you'll have it from the expert.

Fenners79

Noted and re-read KeithP and Le_kirk thankyou for steering me to the correct information. I'm getting more conversant but still a long way to go. Fingers crossed there is no justification for the permit not being valid as it was actually valid and BW Legal discontinue, but it has just dawned on me that I may need to physically go to Northampton with a witness statement....to an actual court. Anyway onward with the defence.

Fenners79

In reference to Couponmad's suggested wording for the abuse of process argument in the Beamerguy thread there is a specific piece of wording;


"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."


However on the claim form I have been sent there is a name in the signed box and in brackets (Claimant's legal representative). I have searched the name and it comes up on Linkedin as a solicitor working for BW Legal. Therefore should I not include the wording above in my defence or am I over thinking this.

Umkomaas

Leave it out.