Claim form from BWLegal

nosferatu1001

Actually, as you will have read - because youre reading multiple threads yes? - theyre messing up telephone hearings left right and centre. 

Do you havea date to file your DOCUMENTS by? What is that date? You have read, by now, the newbies thread on ALL the documents you will be writing and proving, yes?

BWScammer

I don’t have a date to file the documents yet. I called the court and they gave me the hearing date and said I would  receive a letter through the post with all the relevant details. I still haven’t heard anything though.. I need to call them again tomorrow I think. I have more than 2 weeks prior to hearing, but don’t want to leave it to the last minute. Thanks. 

Redx

its normally on the back of the hearing date letter, where most people dont turn it over and so miss it

nosferatu1001

Yep, if you have a letter tellin gyou the hearing date, it will be on there. 

nosferatu1001

If you dont then assume 14 days and file on that basis
You know it needs doing
You know it must be done
you know you cant risk it being late
so you dont take ANY of those risks and you file it more than 14 days in advance anyway

BWScammer

Thanks guys. I haven’t received a letter yet, I only know the date because I called the court. I am currently waiting for to receive the letter. 

Coupon-mad

I'd ring again on Monday and ask them to email a copy as it hasn't arrived.

BWScammer

Good afternoon, 
I have the date set for a telephone hearing and am currently working on my witness statement. I have read a fair few on this forum which has been great. If I put what I have on here so far could somebody just say, "yes you're on the right track", or "no it sounds more like a defence". Any help/criticism is gratefully received. Thank you. 

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: ******
 
Between
 
             NAPIER PARKING LIMITED
(Claimant)
 
-and-  
 
 *******
  (Defendant)
 
__________
 
WITNESS STATEMENT
__________

 

 

1. ********. I am the defendant to which this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.
2. Throughout this Witness Statement I shall refer to documents supplied with this statement referring as exhibits and labeled as **01.
3. The Claimant already knows from the defence the fact that, whilst I was the registered keeper I was not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. If necessary, I am willing to confirm this fact on oath. The driver on the date in question was in fact my partner and I, the passenger. 
4. On the date in question, my partner drove into what appeared to both of us to be access to some bricked garages behind some the high street shops with parking bays and not at all what could be assumed as a “shopping centre car park”. As you can see from exhibit **01, ‘*******’ is in fact a large obvious parking area further along Priory Road with its own entrance, not where the Claimant highlights on his map within his witness statement. Therefore, raises the question if the Claimant actually knows which area of land he is authorised to regulate.
5. The Claimant is relying on Terms and Conditions set out within signage in the area. Not drawing onerous terms to the attention of a consumer breaches Lord Denning's 'red hand rule'. A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and 'bound to be seen'. In this case, the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC').  The IPC mandatory Code says that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers.
6. As you can see from exhibit **02 - **03, taken from Google Maps on the 15th September 2020 the entrance of the area and sign claiming to be “Private Land” is not in clear view, as demonstrated by different angles. The sign is small and could be easily hidden from view when driving into the walled area by a nearby tree. 
7. Neither myself or my partner noticed any pay and display or any signs when entering the area stating payment was required. Once inside the walled area the signage is not obvious. The font is small and unreadable and the sign positioned at such height to make is difficult to see (exhibit **04-**05). Even the Claimants own Witness Statement demonstrates an ineligible sign - see page 11 of Claimants Witness Statement. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

Coupon-mad

It's a good start but needs all the rest - see the WS an index of evidence posted by @robertcox999 for what it should all look like and what a very good current WS looks like in terms of the other arguments (it is there for you to copy).

AND - get ANGRY and GET EVEN about this scam! 

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have:

A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER:

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters and MUST GO.  Remove that layer and you remove the ‘drivers’ behind the race to court.

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

Responses into the PAS 232 and MHCLG framework documents are not completely straightforward:

On the MHCLG response, you have to answer the questions on a 1-5 scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then put some commentary. No way to upload documents or alternatives.

 

On the PAS 232, you have to click on each clause and sub-clause to put your comments, and a suggested rewording of their draft.  You can see comments which other people have written! 

 

But, when you click ‘submit’, a message pops up to say your comments have been received, but that only applies to the particular clause you have just addressed.

 

You have to click ‘submit’ separately for each individual clause response.

 

Some people will be caught out by this but can revisit it and add further responses up to 12 October.

 

 

BWScammer

Great, thank you.