Claim form from BWLegal

Coupon-mad

So your defence numbers on the actual document go up to the late twenties?

It is merely signed “BW Legal”.

Is it?

BWScammer

Yes, they are numbered and lettered with sub sections.

Every letter from BW Legal is signed “BW Legal “. The County Court Claim Form is “signed” by a legal representative.

Coupon-mad

BWScammer wrote: »

Every letter from BW Legal is signed “BW Legal “.

Of course. That's perfectly normal from a solicitor firm.

The County Court Claim Form is “signed” by a legal representative.

So it is signed then. Nothing to see.

BWScammer

I’ll leave that out then. Thank you for clearing that up. What about the rest of the defence?

Coupon-mad

3. The particulars of the claim state the Defendant is liable for a sum of £2XX.XX for a breach of contract where by the driver allegedly failed to display a valid parking permit in an area where the Claimant alleges that parking licences are only on offer to those displaying a 'permit'.
3.1. It is denied the Defendant was the driver of said vehicle at the time of the supposed event.
3.2. “xxxxxx Shopping Centre Car Park" is not an actual car park. It is private land behind some shops which appears to be access to bricked garages.
3.3. There was no means or method available in clear unambiguous terms, regarding how to obtain [STRIKE]of which to pay for[/STRIKE] a parking permit within the area of land in question [STRIKE]Meaning [/STRIKE] and therefore, the driver did not have the opportunity to access one. Any alleged parking contract based upon the terms as drafted on the signs is void for impossibility and this appears to be an attempt to 'dress up' prohibitive signs and a driver who might have inadvertently trespassed at the most, as if they agreed to an offer of parking at a price. Trespass was not pleaded however, and this Claimant parking firm cannot pursue the matter as they are not the landowner, to the Defendant's knowledge.
3.4. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, and therefore has not breached any terms or conditions. This matter is in all facts, a case that is fully distinguished from the agreed terms in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [015] UKSC67 case, where Mr Beavis was the driver and he had read clear & prominent signs with brief, large font words that offered a parking place as part of a contractual offer that had value to a driver with a limited time allowed to use it. This case has no such agreed contractual terms and no consideration flowed between the parties, and the Defendant was not a party to the event anyway.

BWScammer

Wow, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Coupon-mad

At WS stage use PCM v Bull, and PACE v Lengyel (from the Parking Prankster's case law pages) as part of your evidence that no contract was offered to non permit holders.

And I am wary that I am saying this without having even seen the signs...

BWScammer

I will look into those for my witness statement, thank you.
I am not sure how to upload photos on here, but the sign says in small text "for permit applications and availability please contact us", then in very small text at the bottom it has the address and phone number.

BWScammer

They are also charging interest at an 8% per annum, works out £7.60 at the moment.. is this worth mentioning too?

Coupon-mad

No, that's normal for a court claim. You need to read more defence threads!