County Court Claim from Countrywide Parking Management

ked

Hi All,

My wife received a Claim Form from CWPM on the 28th August 2019, this made the Date of Service 2nd September 2019. She returned the Acknowledgement of Service form on the 4th September and we now have until 30th September to submit a defence.

We have not responded to any of the increasingly aggressive correspondence from BW Legal or Trace Recovery to this point.

I've scanned, copied and pasted the claimant details, the Particulars of Claim and the amounts claimed below:

Claimant:
COUNTRYWIDE PARKING
MANAGEMENT LIMITED
20 WATSON HOUSE
398-4OO HOLDENHURST ROAD
BOURNEMOUTH
DORSET
BH8 8BN

Address for sending documents and payments (if different)
BW LEGAL
ENTERPRISE HOUSE, 1 APEX VIEW
LEEDS
LS11 98H


Particulars of Claim

The Claimant's' Claim is for the sum of
£501.87 being monies due from the
Defendant to the Claimant in respect of
Parking Charge Notices (PCN) for
parking contraventions which occured between
and on private land
managed and operated by the Claimant, where
the Defendant was responsible for a Vehicle,
registration mark, seen breaching
the Terms and Conditions in operation at the
Car Park/Private Land.
The Defendant was allowed 28 days from
the PCN issue Date to pay each PCN, but
failed to do so.
Despite demand having been made,
the Defendant has failed to settle their
outstanding liability.
The Claim also includes Statutory lnterest
pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts
Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily
rate of 0.07 from 17/10/2018
to 27/08/2019 being an amount of E21.87 .
The Claimant also claims £ contractual
costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions.

Amount claimed 501.87
Court fee 60.00
Legal representative's costs 70.00
Total amount 631.87

When we look carefully at the Particulars, it soon becomes apparent that it's little more than a badly executed mailmerge with key information missing.

1) The registration number of the car hasn't been included
2) The date (or dates) of the alleged offence(s) haven't been included
3) The location of the alleged offence(s) haven't been included
4) It doesn't specify whether this is for one of more CPNs
5) They say they are claiming for "contractual costs" but don't specify an amount.

I could make the assumption that this is for 2 CPNs which my wife received Letters of Claim for, but it is not in any way explicit. The LoCs were for £240 each respectively, which when we add their Statutory Interest of £21.87 adds up to the current claim sum of £501.87. There is a 3rd PCN from CWPM that she has received a Loc for 6 months ago but haven't heard anything further about yet. It's worth noting that my wife is the keeper of the car but wasn't the driver at the times of all 3 of the CPNs (ahem).

We have been researching previous defences on here and were all ready to go in to the details of signage, keeper liability etc, but I really don't think there is enough basic information in the Particulars of Claim for us to prepare a defence?

Could we get this thrown out on that basis?

It's confusing that their information is so sparse!

Any advice would be very gratefully received...

Many thanks,

Ked

KeithP

ked wrote: »

My wife received a Claim Form from CWPM on the 28th August 2019...

You say the claim was received on 28th August, but what is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

ked

Apologies, that was the Issue Date.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th August, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 30th 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.

Of course, where I have written 'you' or 'your' I mean the Defendant.


It may not have been a good idea to have done the Acknowledgment of Service, as technically you are accepting the Particulars of Claim.

Wait for others to comment on exactly how it's done, but I think you should be looking for this claim to be thrown out.

ShakeItOff

If you haven't done so already, don't forget to submit a SAR to the PPC, Trace and DVLA. That might give you a clue about how many PCNs are kicking about.

They should be bringing all PCNs under one claim, not separately.

ked

So, we submitted the following defence on the 29/9/2019:

Defence
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and have significant gaps in the information provided. The
Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the
right to seek from the Court permission to serue an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or
expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the
unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
2.1 The claimant does not speciff the car registration, date or location of the alleged offence(s).
2.2The claimant does not speciflT the number of PCNs that the claim relates to.
2.3 The amount claimed seems excessive, although it is impossible for the Defendant to assess this as
there is no breakdown of how this amount was arrived at or how many PCNs it applies to.
2.4The defendant has submitted a SubjectAccess Request under the General Data Protection
Regulations (GDPR) to the Claimant asking for all data held on the Defendant to be released. At the time
of submitting this defence, that data has not been received.
3. The Claim Form issued on the 28th August 2019 by BW Legal Service Limited was not conectly filed
under The Practice Direction.
3.'l The claim does not have a valid signature
3.2 Practice Direction 22 (3.7) states that the representative for the claimant must state the capacity in which he
signs and the name of his firm where appropriate. These items are not present.
3.3 Practice Direction 22 (3.4) requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by
a person holding a senior position and state the position. The claim does not state the office or position
held by the named representative.
4. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant
was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in
these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act2012
("POFA").
5. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant
expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is
the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private
parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of

POFA, which makes no such provision. ln the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172
of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1 988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly
limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this
matter.
6. 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 contrac{ual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied,
or by conduct.
7. Finally, the Defendant would like to bring to attention the fact that The Claimant's solicitors are known to
be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even
checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims. The
Defendant believes the term for such conduct is "robo-claims" which is against the public interest,
demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The
defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied
until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
8. ln 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.
Statement of Truth
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

ked

Since then we returned the court questionnaire and request that the case be heard by our local court.

We received the following from the court:

GENERAL FORM OF JUDGEMENT OR ORDER
DATE: 4/12/2019


1st Claimant: Countrywide Parking Management

Upon the Courts own initiative

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The claimant to file and serve fully by 18 December 2019 detailed Particulars of Claim in compliance with CPR 16.4

2. This order having been made by the court pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, any party affected by this order has a right to apply to set it aside, vary or stay it by application made not more than 7 days after this order was served on the party making the application.
Dated 26 November 2019

I'm not sure what item 2 actually means, does it mean that we can apply to have the case thrown out, if so, how?

Any help would be very gratefully received!

All the best,

Ked

KeithP

Para 2 is to allow either party to object to the Order.

I can't see that the Defendant has any need to object to this Order as the Defendant has not been ordered to do anything.

The Claimant may object to the Order if they believe that their PoC is already compliant.

In other words, nothing for you to do.
Notify the court if you don't receive new PoCs by 18th December.

You might want to ask the court for time to file a revised Defence if the PoCs differ significantly.

Le_Kirk

ked wrote: »

Any help would be very gratefully received!

Looks like you might be on your way to a win.

The_Deep

The Claimant's' Claim is for the sum of
£501.87

Probably an abuse of process, read this

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]