CCBC Claim Form PPS BW

Fruitcake

Were_Doomed said:

You do both ... you argue that their WS/evidence was served late thus should be disregarded. Hence their claim fails as they have no evidence and their witness is not in attendance. If the judge allows their WS/evidence then you start to pick it apart.

In other words - prepare for both eventualities. Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

Yes, that's good advice.

With regards to their breach of their own contract, you could throw the words from their WS para 14 back at them.

Instead of,
14. The Defendant, by entering and remaining in the Car Park, wilfully agreed to abide by the Terms and Conditions ... 

You could have,
The Claimant, by signing and providing the contract, wilfully agreed to abide by the Terms and Conditions of Appendix 2 ... 

barnstormerdog

Castle also picked up on this and had some other useful comments:

A few quick comments:-

1) The Land Registry exhibit is dated 29th January 2014; which is some 2 months before Devon and Cornwall Car Parks Ltd was incorporated on 1st April 2014. There is no evidence that Devon and Cornwall own the land or have a lease with the landowner.

2) Any contract is only being offered by Napier Parking Ltd and not PPS; as the "contract" dated June 2014 (1) makes no mention of allowing PPS to offer a parking contract, (2) all "Pay & Display" monies has to be paid to Devon and Cornwall, and (3) only Napier Parking name appears on the P&D Tickets.

3) The June 2014 contract also requires PPS to remain a member of the BPA at all times; they are a IPC member.

4) The weekly P&D Ticket purchased on 6th October 2017 has an expiry time of 01.15 (am) on the 13th, but it appears to have been purchased at 18.00 on the 6th; which suggests it should not expire until 18.00 on the 13th and therefore, makes the NTD on the 13th invalid.

5) As the vehicle didn't leave the car park, there has been no "second" contract and no "second" breach. The T&C's does not allow them to issue a ticket for each 24 hours, but only for one breach.

Coupon-mad

Castle made good points.

barnstormerdog

I sent an email asking for BW Legal to snet strict proof that they served the court on time as the court had given me evidence that they received the documents late: 

We refer to the above matter and the below emails.
Please find below attached screenshot of the Claimant’s Solicitors email dated 07/08/2020 filing their Witness Statement to the Court via email in compliance with the Notice of Allocation.
Therefore the Claimant did in fact file and serve their documents on time.
As a hard copy of the Claimant’s documents were also sent to court via the post, it is most likely this is what the Court officer was referring to when corresponding with the Defendant.

The email does say sent 15:57 07/08/20 . But I feel I was right to question it. 

barnstormerdog

The have now sent another email asking for my defence to be struck out:

I refer to the above matter.

 

Please note the following.

 

1.                   The Claimant’s solicitors believe that the template response refers to cases having been struck out in box work, such as the one mentioned at paragraph 6 of the Defence. As the Claimant’s solicitors dealt with this matter, we are familiar with the facts, and the judgment. Most importantly, we can confirm that this judgment (of 11 Nov 2019) (copy of original judgement attached) was the subject of the Appeal, with this judgment having been set aside. However, whilst reviewing the judgment exhibited by the Defendant, it is noted that:

1.1               The report refers to two case numbers and “The First Defendant appeared in person”, but only the 2nd Defendant’s name is noted, such that the
1st Defendant’s name has been removed;

1.2               Similarly, paragraphs one and four of the judgment refers to there being two applications/two Defendants before the Court, but the 2nd Defendant’s name has been removed from lines four (para. 1) and line 1 (para. 4);

2.                   It is quite apparent that the Defendant’s copy of the judgement filed and served has been doctored. One can only speculate as to the motives behind this, but at the very least, it is submitted that the use of a doctored judgment is misleading and at worst, an attempt to use a falsified official transcript of the court. No doubt the court will take this into account on the question of the Defendant’s conduct.

3.                   In light of the above, the Claimant will be seeking further costs against Defendant for his unreasonable behaviour at the hearing for the following:

a)        First for filing and serving an generic internet cut and paste defence raising baseless and irrelevant technical arguments;

b)      Second the judgement exhibited within his defence has been doctored and falsifying official court documents to mislead the court; and

c)       In relation to the Defendant’s Cost Schedule it is noted that he is claiming for 15 hours of research and drafting. Please note that the cut and paste internet Defence he has filed is readily available on  moneysavingsexpert.com as mentioned in para 35 – 38 of the Claimant’s Statement. Within minutes of looking online the Defendant would have come across this and then it is a simple “fill in the blanks –eg Claim Number, Vehicle registration number etc ” which would take less than an hour. Therefore the Defendant is being disingenuous in stating 15 hours as oppose 1 hour. In any event the Defendant breached the Claimant’s Parking Terms and Conditions and is liable for the outstanding balance. Within the defendant’s witness statement he has confirmed in paragraph 1 that he has carried out research and all information is within his known knowledge however his statement is a repeat of the internet defence filed and the Defendant is being disingenuous that he has spent a further 8 hours drafting his statement.

I trust the Court will not overlook the Defendant’s unreasonable behaviour and in any event strike out the Defence based on the above.

barnstormerdog

Included is a copy of my defence and this PDF

beamerguy

The simple fact is that BWL ARE SCARED stiff of this forum, they proved that a few months ago with nonsensical rubbish on their web site

Your answer to their claim about MSE

" As the parking charge was £100, I could not understand why they added a further £60. So, you researched to internet for an answer. it was reading the MSE site that I discovered that BWL apply this extra charge yet fail to explain why and I now ask the court why ?
I would suggest the it is BWLegal who are being disingenuous by misleading myself and the court regarding an extra charge they have no reasonable answer for"

And.. if they say they are allowed to because the code of practice says so, they are again misleading the court because the code of practice is only applicable to the parking operator and forms no contract with the motorist
=============================================================

I trust you understand how misleading this is which is contrary to the Beavis case, POFA2012 and the courts own ruling about Double recovery

Also, any mention of the BWLegal appeal in Salisbury will also be misleading as the appeal judge did not give licence to add the £60.  

Castle

barnstormerdog said:

I sent an email asking for BW Legal to snet strict proof that they served the court on time as the court had given me evidence that they received the documents late: 

We refer to the above matter and the below emails.
Please find below attached screenshot of the Claimant’s Solicitors email dated 07/08/2020 filing their Witness Statement to the Court via email in compliance with the Notice of Allocation.
Therefore the Claimant did in fact file and serve their documents on time.
As a hard copy of the Claimant’s documents were also sent to court via the post, it is most likely this is what the Court officer was referring to when corresponding with the Defendant.

The email does say sent 15:57 07/08/20 . But I feel I was right to question it. 

But did you ever, (or the court), give them permission to serve you by email?

barnstormerdog

I don't know about the court, I wasn't given an email address which is why I sent a hard copy as well as email (email was given to confirm the BTMeetMe number). I gave my email address and home address in the Directions Questionnaire which they have attached in the email and claim:

Please find enclosed the Defendant’s Direction Questionnaire in which the Defendant has provided his email address as a serviceable method.

barnstormerdog

beamerguy said:

The simple fact is that BWL ARE SCARED stiff of this forum, they proved that a few months ago with nonsensical rubbish on their web site

Your answer to their claim about MSE

" As the parking charge was £100, 

The parking charge was £90 so I will edit that.