Premier / BW Legal - County Court Claim

bv_vs_stubborn

I will do. It is rather overwhelming at the moment, but slow working my way though things. Thanks all.

bv_vs_stubborn

Draft 4. Any input very appreciated.

---

“
IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Premier Park Limited (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)


DEFENCE



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

1.2. The Claimant has spent over 5 years harassing the Defendant with ever increasing and intimidating demands pursuing this charge, sending intimidating letters and causing the Defendant and their family significant distress because it has caused arguments within the family.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. However it is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle upon parking in question at the time of the alleged incident. There were multiple people travelling and it cannot be recalled who parked the vehicle because all members were working at the venue and the car needed to be parked properly after arriving for work at the venue.

3.1 It is denied that the vehicle was parked in an area that had clear signage with terms and conditions prominently displayed in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. When the vehicle was parked, it was getting dark and upon receiving, we managed to find a small sign that was not clear. There was no lighting to showcase that people cannot park in that area in the evenings.

3.2 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.

4. 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.. There was also poor lighting int the dark.

5. In 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, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

5.1. These have been variously described as a 'Contractual Costs', in the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £272.80. This is disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

5.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

5.2.1. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

6. 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.

Name
Signature
Date

---

Le_Kirk

You still need landowner authority and you should also search the forum for Abuse of Process as the claimant has added a spurious £60. If you search correctly, you will find this thread and on that thread read and use post # 14 in your defence, either in summary form to expand upon in your witness statement or in full in your defence.

1505grandad

Para 3.1 - not sure what this means:-

"When the vehicle was parked, it was getting dark and upon receiving, we managed to find a small sign that was not clear."

bv_vs_stubborn

Hi all. I have submitted my defence after some pruning and improving. I have emailed it to CCBCAQ@justice.gov.uk. I will check in a few days to ensure it is received. If not, chase it up.

I will post about what happens next.

Thanks to all those who has input.

nosferatu1001

NOt a few days
The day after
Then then day after that, if needed.
And so on...

bv_vs_stubborn

Not to get my hopes up. But except one letter urging me to call BW Legal to settle it at a reduced rate. I haven't had any other communication. Is it too early, or does this mean they will likely not follow up?

Thanks

Umkomaas

Have you checked where things are with the court?

nosferatu1001

Indeed - what did you check with the court/
You will know frmo the newbies thread, or just by reading any court thread, they have 28 days to respond to your defence to say if they wish to proceed or not

Theres a reason i TOLD you to keep checking. If you have missed the DQ, for example, you lose. Thats it.

bv_vs_stubborn

The courts received my defence. I had a letter from the courts days after I sent it. The letter said there would be further info if they took it further.

About a week later I had the letter from BW Legal. That was about 3 weeks ago.