bwlegal and premier park exceeding maximum stay period

FAIR.DEAL

Hello everyone,


I have read Newbies thread and you generous kindness helping others with all matters relating to PCN.


I received claim form on 18/12/19 and filed acknowledgement of service same day and sent SARs to premier park same day.


The particulars of claim are: The Claimant's claim is for the sum of £107.40 being monies due from the defendant to the Claimant in respect of a PCN issued on 13/12/18 at xxx shopping centre. The PCN relates to AUDI under registration xxxx. The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the issue Date to pay the PCN, but filed to do so. Despite demand having been mad, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The Claim also includes statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 being an amount of £7.40. The Claimant also claims £60 contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms of conditions.


The facts are, on material date I was working at one of the shops in the shopping centre as I have done for many years and always parked on site. My old car was registered on permit system and I forgot to register the new car on the day. I appealed to PCN but was refused and subsequently popla appeal was refused too.


Then I ignored all the letters I received regarding this PCN until I received letter before claim in August from bwlegal, I went to shopping centre manager and he told me I left it too late, and now he can't do anything. I received letters and voicemails from bwlegal on a daily basis for a while, I told them even if it went to court they won't succeed as I will challenge them. Suddenly all letters and calls stopped until this court form on 18/12/19.


Please help me write my defence

Redx

Post the issue date from the claim form below

Nobody will help you to write your defence

You draft it and post it on here for critique and feedback

Also ensure that you have emailed a SAR to the DPO at the PPC and attach a copy of the claim form to it as proof of I D under the GDPR law

FAIR.DEAL

Hi,


claim form issued 18/12/19 and I did AoS on 20/12/19.


Premier park hasn't yet asked for proof of ID, however they replied to my email with automatic reply that they will respond within 30 days. Shall I wait for their email or send another email with claim form as form of ID?


Thank you

Le_Kirk

FAIR.DEAL wrote: »

Please help me write my defence

Redx wrote: »

Nobody will help you to write your defence

You draft it and post it on here for critique and feedback

Also ensure that you have emailed a SAR to the DPO at the PPC and attach a copy of the claim form to it as proof of I D under the GDPR law

If you have read the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 you will have seen that there are links to several (17 at the last count) defences, one or more of which will be a starting point to compose your defence. Post it on here and then regulars will critique it for you.

KeithP

FAIR.DEAL wrote: »

claim form issued 18/12/19 and I did AoS on 20/12/19.

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th December, and having filed an Acknowledgement of Service on 20th December, you have until 4pm on Friday 17th January 2020 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. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it 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 trying to keep you under pressure. Just file it.
   
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

The Claimant also claims £60 contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms of conditions.

WHOOPS BWLegal on the scam again

The courts don't like these fake add-on charge and call it ABUSE OF PROCESS

WHY ????? read what is going on

Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

Redx

Terrible copy and paste

Copy your draft into notepad to remove the formatting

Then save it , and copy and paste from notepad into the last reply , after deleting that stuff above , do not copy and paste from Word , not unless you want an I P ban

beamerguy

YES as above, not your fault

MSE does not accept copy and paste from word because scammers could place multi ads

Notepad is the answer

KeithP

If you are copying from an advanced word processing application such as MS Word, prepare to have your IP address blocked.

This post may help you understand:

Please don't copy and paste from Word/Outlook

FAIR.DEAL

I am sorry I didn't know, here is a copy from notepad


In the County Court
Claim Number: xxxxxxx
Between
Premier Park Limited (Claimant)
v
Xyour nameX (Defendant)
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 Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 13/12/2018 at XXX Shopping centre.
2.1. At the material date, The Defendant was working at xxxxx in xxxx Shopping Centre, therefore was allowed to park onsite all day.
2.2. The Defendant appealed to PCN on 30/12/18 but was refused and further appeal was subsequently refused through Popla.
2.3. If only the Defendant did not follow the proposed instruction on PCN by appealing, but rather complained to the shopping innocent hard centre manager directly, this PCN would have been cancelled for sure.
2.4. The Defendant believes that the Premier Park operating as an outrageous scam, only set out to pocket money from -working people and their appeal system is unfair and unjust.
3. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
4. This claim inflates the total charges in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. Thus, there can be no 'costs' to pile on top of any parking charge claim.
5. The claim contains a substantial charge of £60 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, Sechedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in Parking eye 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.
6. In a letter from bwlegal dated 9th July 2018, claims the additional £60 relates to legal costs. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent by legally qualified staff on actually preparing the claim and/or the costA of obtaining advice for that specific claim, in a legal capacity.
7. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief

Redx

Remove the word Statement after the word Defence

Your defence should be like the 2 bargepole examples