New MCOL N1 court claim filed by BW Legal re Parking Fine by Napier Parking in 2018

disrepair

Hi all,

I've just about prepared a defence to submit, but had some quick questions about section 16 and 17.

"The Defendant is not the main/only driver of this vehicle" - The defendant is the main driver, but not the only driver - I assume I should change the sentence to just "The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle"? Or should I remove the entire section, as I believe the reason for the ticket itself is overstaying the ticket at Willen Lake car park by a short amount of time.

I've sent a request in for the information I need from the parking company itself with a SAR, but so far have not received a response except an acknowledgement of the receipt of my email. 

For Section 17, "

(e.g.  or maybe the ATA grace periods were breached; or the fact it was dark/rainy and no signs were seen;   Careful not to 'blab' about being the driver if you are intending to rely upon the POFA!)

I'm wondering what to put for this section - I am pretty sure the ticket is due to staying longer than allowed by a short while on the ticket, but no such information was sent with the MCOL form. Just that some alleged contravention took place at just after 7pm at the end of June (not sure how specific I should be). 

Thank you again for all the assistance, I was hoping I'd have some information sent in from the SAR to Napier Parking, but looks like I won't be getting a response from them any time soon.

Coupon-mad

Leave #16 as it is.  
As for #17, write that:

The Defendant is disadvantaged by the fact that the sparse particulars of claim fail to set out the contract (sign wording) or whatever term was alleged to have been breached, because these facts are omitted and thus, not pleaded.  But the Defendant avers that any driver of this car who visited Willen Lake would certainly have paid and displayed if they parked there, and that any small overstay that may or may not be alleged would be explained by the need for an observation period on arrival (before the contract was concluded by paying at a machine) plus the minimum ten minutes mandatory grace period, after paid-for time.  Any contravention is denied.

disrepair

Thank you very much, coupon-mad.

For Section 2, they've charged me the 100 + 60 as set out in their "contract", but they've also added 12.42 as statutory interest. 

Under the fees section on the form, this is what is shown. 



Would I be correct in assuming that the global fee I should be putting as 172.42, with the inclusion of this statutory interest?

Umkomaas

Nope - it's £160. 

Coupon-mad

Seconded - it's £160; which is why the template says 'THIS IS USUALLY £160'.

beamerguy

disrepair said:

Thank you very much, coupon-mad.

For Section 2, they've charged me the 100 + 60 as set out in their "contract", but they've also added 12.42 as statutory interest. 

Under the fees section on the form, this is what is shown. 



Would I be correct in assuming that the global fee I should be putting as 172.42, with the inclusion of this statutory interest?

Another fake claim by BWLegal, they know that once the judge is aware of this abuse of process, he will probably kick a*s again .... IE: ANOTHER BWLEGAL SPANKING

All they can hope for is a judge who does not understand ABUSE OF PROCESS  ....... but you already know about the BWLegal spankings
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1?new=1

I would suggest that even at this stage, to save their embarrassment in court, you write to them

Dear Sirs,
Further to your court claim dated xxxxx 
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 judge.
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
Please note that I have written to you before any court date is decided and I reserve the right to show the court this letter as you will already have a copy

Yours faithfully

disrepair

beamerguy said:

I would suggest that even at this stage, to save their embarrassment in court, you write to them

Haha, I'll be sending them that. Might as well give them a run for their money, and for wasting my time.

It'll be quite amusing to see their response, as I'm sure they'll try to hold whatever imaginary ground they think they've got.

Umkomaas

The more spiky the attitude adopted by forum posters, the better. If they are up for the challenge of risking just what the PPC is presently demanding (and with a very high potential of beating them), the more PPCs will think twice about chancing their arm in the hope that they can intimidate and worry motorists into supinely handing over their money and placing it into their grubby hands. 

Dunkirk spirit guys and gals. Bigger and more serious (COVID) fish to fry, a PPC is small beer - go for their throat!

D_P_Dance

I could not have said the above better myself.  

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

I could not have said the above better myself.  

Wow, duly honoured.  Forum knighthood beckons. 😄