bwlegal and premier park exceeding maximum stay period

Coupon-mad

Please read the threads by @keypulse and @gbbe to see what to submit, as this is NOT just a sheet copied from your defence, you need evidence, a contents page, a witness statement, a supplementary WS and a Summary costs assessment (your costs and time, at £19 per hour).

FAIR.DEAL

Thank you Coupon-mad, I have used Keypulse summary costs assessment and I will use your supplementary WS. I just don't have any evidence to rely on, it was my fault, totally forgot to put my reg on permit system all signs indicated everywhere. The only evidence I can show is my employment contract.  I received their WS today... it seems like I haven't got a chance to win 

Chiggings

Don’t give up hope, you can always win. I’m fighting Premier Park as well at the moment. They are a bunch of scammers that barely understand the word “manage”. All they do is stick up a few ANRP cameras and try and cash in for doing as little work as possible. 

Le_Kirk

FAIR.DEAL said:

Thank you Coupon-mad, I have used Keypulse summary costs assessment and I will use your supplementary WS. I just don't have any evidence to rely on, it was my fault, totally forgot to put my reg on permit system all signs indicated everywhere. The only evidence I can show is my employment contract.  I received their WS today... it seems like I haven't got a chance to win 

That is the idea behind the WS, I bet if you read it carefully, you will be able to demolish much of what they claim.

FAIR.DEAL

Hi guys,
Today I received an offer of 25% off from BW legal. If I present my WS as it is, is there any chance of winning, I think I have until thursday to hand in my WS.

beamerguy

FAIR.DEAL said:

Hi guys,
Today I received an offer of 25% off from BW legal. If I present my WS as it is, is there any chance of winning, I think I have until thursday to hand in my WS.

BWLegal are at it again ....... think logically ?   If they really thought they would win, would they give discounts.
BWLegal know they are on dodgy ground with their fake add-ons.  Now is the time to reply.  You can show your letter to the judge

Dear Sirs,
Further to your offer of a 25% discount, 
As I am unsure that your claim is legitimate, and in particular the added amount of £60 which you have yet to prove your legal authority in your claim, I intend to refer this matter to the court.
In view of the current Covid-19 issue, it would be best for both parties, for you to discontinue and your client bears their own costs and in turn I will not claim costs against your client.  Please reply within 7 days

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

FAIR.DEAL said:

Hi guys,
Today I received an offer of 25% off from BW legal.
If I present my WS as it is, is there any chance of winning, I think I have until thursday to hand in my WS.

No, do it properly with evidence and a costs assessment and cover sheet. 
YOU DO HAVE EVIDENCE, the NEWBIES thread gives you tips such as placing a pic of the tiny sign next to the Beavis case sign...the tips are there to help people think outside th box and realise they have a case.

FAIR.DEAL

Thank you Beamerguy, I will send them that letter.  
Coupon-mad - maybe I missed those photos I will have another look.
Just another silly question, when court says to submit WS 14 days before hearing, does it mean 14 working days or 2 weeks. My court is on 1/5/20

Le_Kirk

No it means 14 days, in this case 17th April.

FAIR.DEAL

I have done some changes to my WS, I have summary cost assessment. I would appreciate any feedback

In the County Court at Bradford

Claim Number: xxxx

Between

Premier Park Limited (Claimant)

and

xxxxx (Defendant)

___________________

WITNESS STATEMENT

_______________

1. I am xxx of address, the defendant in this matter. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. I have carried out a good deal of research in preparation for this case, however I trust the Court will excuse me if my presentation is less than professional. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I will say as follows:

2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence bundle supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. I will refer to this bundle as AS01

3. I am the registered keeper and was the driver of the vehicle registered xxxx.   The Claim relates to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 13/12/2018 at xxxx Shopping centre, Leeds.

4. On the material date, I was the xxx at (shop) in xxxx Shopping Centre. Store opens 9.00-18:00 and I only parked at the rear car park for the duration I was working there (8:28-18:23).  (Exhibited p1-3/AS01)

5. On entrance to the rear car park, there were some small scattered signs that due to their size and position were nowhere near adequate for drawing attention to themselves.  (exhibited p3-4/AS01)

6. As I walked into the branch, it become apparent to me that I would have a very busy day as workload was doubled in preparation for Christmas holidays and were short staffed.  It was the first time going in with my new, my old car was on permit system permanently; I completely forgot to update system with my new car due to workload. 

7. My understanding of claimant’s responsibilities at the time was to manage car park to ensure surrounding businesses can run successfully including providing safe parking for staff.  I thoroughly believed if I appealed and explained I was an employee of xxxxx that would be accepted, I did not think they were opportunistic scammers.

8. I appealed against PCN on 30/12/18 but was refused and further appeal was subsequently refused through Popla.  I am merely a human being who sometime forget or become overwhelmed under pressure.  If only I did not follow the proposed instruction on PCN by appealing, but rather complained to the shopping centre manager directly, this PCN would have been cancelled for sure.  I believe that the Premier Park operating as an outrageous scam, only set out to pocket money from innocent hard-working people and their appeal system is unfair and unjust.

9. I have reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in contractual costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will:

(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

10. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.

The Beavis case is against this Claim

11. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. 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 an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters.

The POFA 2012 and the ATA Code of Practice are against this Claim

12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') at paras 4(5) and 4(6) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100).

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA') is against this claim

13. Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 60% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source.

14. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is my 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, harassing and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made.

15. The Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

16. I deny 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 my costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

 Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

sign 
name