ANPR 'overstay' Court Claim BW legal

EasyRider101

Good afternoon and thanks in advance for this brilliant forum and the advice shared on it.
I am contesting a County Court Claim brought by BW legal for their client TPS. I intend to contest on the grounds of insufficient signage.

I requested the SAR from the PPC in which the PCN claims the vehicle overstayed the 120 minute limit by 22 minutes in a free car park. Time stamped pictures are included of the vehicle entering and leaving

I have filed the AOS on MCOL. The court letter was dated 05/09 and I submitted AOS 13/09/19

I will use the following defence statement:

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 XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper at the time, entered the car park on the material date with the intention of using the retail services on site

3. It is denied that the Defendant breached any of the claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. It is also disputed that the Claimants signage erected with the car park is of a large enough font and displayed adequately for patrons to read thoroughly, nor is the signage adequately lit. The terms and conditions on the signage are not set out in a sufficiently clear manner that would be enable any reasonable person reading them to be bound to any form of contract. The £70 penalty charge is not highlighted in large enough font to be immediately noticeable and it is unclear as to when this applies.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
6. Any claim for trespass (as it would be, Parking Eye v Beavis) would be in the name of the occupier of the land, not their parking management company.

7. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters

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 £70. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. Further to point 8 above I believe this to be an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

10. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ 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 BWLegal'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 "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 judgment 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…"

11. 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.

12. 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, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

13. 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 mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. 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.

I have an ongoing email dialogue with BW legal, the last of which says their cient is not willing to discontinue the claim at this time.

EasyRider101

I would like to add, the original PCN dated October 2018 went to an old address so we did not recieve it or the follow up demand. The first we knew of the matter is when BW legal started sending letters with added 'fees' which we duly ignored until the CCJ threat.

KeithP

EasyRider101 wrote: »

I have filed the AOS on MCOL. The court letter was dated 05/09 and I submitted AOS 13/09/19.

Hi and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th September, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 8th October 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two 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.

beamerguy

I have an ongoing email dialogue with BW legal, the last of which says their client is not willing to discontinue the claim at this time.

That's OK. within the ABUSE OF PROCESS, you must ask the court to request from BWLegal on what authority do they have to circumvent the law, POFA2012 and the courts own double recovery rules

We have yet to see any suitable response from BWL and I doubt if we will ???

Le_Kirk

9. Further to point 8 above I believe this to be an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

Should be: -

9. Further to point 8 above [strike]I[/strike] the defendant believes this to be an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

All defences are written in the Third Person (check for any other similar instances.) Good to see the abuse of process included. If you search for and read again that thread by beamerguy, you will see that another instance has been added at Caernarfon Court with a case reference.

EasyRider101

I shall bulk up that Abuse of Process section in my final draft.

Also, it was my wife who was driving that day and if this does get to court then I'll be standing on her behalf (what a man ay?!) so therefore I take that on board regarding writing in the 3rd person

Coupon-mad

Also, it was my wife who was driving that day and if this does get to court then I'll be standing on her behalf (what a man ay?!) so therefore I take that on board regarding writing in the 3rd person

But who is the named Defendant, YOU as registered keeper? If so then you are not appearing on her behalf because the case is yours. If the D is your wife then she must attend the hearing too, even if you elect to speak for her, the Defendant must attend.

Have you changed your car registration address at the DVLA now? You get a real fine of £1000 for failure to update that (updating your driving licence is a different thing).

EasyRider101

She is the named Defendant and keeper so yes she will attend and we do now have an updated v5.

I have taken pictures of the car park. The signage really is poor, how they can expect or even be allowed to have that to stand up as a contract is beyond me.

Redx

EasyRider101 wrote: »

She is the named Defendant and keeper so yes she will attend and we do now have an updated v5.

I have taken pictures of the car park. The signage really is poor, how they can expect or even be allowed to have that to stand up as a contract is beyond me.

in that case YOU are NOT contesting a court claim , she is , as keeper and as defendant, you are her advisor , helper , lay rep , friend


so bear in mind that for you there is no I


this isnt anything to do with you , you are helping her from goodwill etc , SHE is submitting HER defence and later HER ws and costs schedule and exhibits etc


so please get these ideas into your head and her head asap , it is her vehicle , her court case , her on the line here , BE AWARE

Coupon-mad

And she will win, with you as lay rep speaking for her! Just needs all submissions to be in her name, not yours, that's what we are getting at.

EasyRider101

The defendant shall submit the defence letter today. The defendant has expanded more on the abuse of process but was wondering if it was worth including anything on the BPA code of conduct with reference to grace periods. The pictures TPS are using as evidence only show the vehicle entering and leaving the retail park.
Should the defendant pursue this as part of her defence or just stick to insufficient signage and highlight the abuse of process?