BW Legal court date received for case against Premier Park

jacksparrow2000

Thanks all for your input, sometimes i wish id just paid the £60!
I've taken in all your comments and modified my witness statement. Im still not sure about the driver part, i've never admitted i was driving, is there any worthwhile argument there?

Appreciate any further advice, thanks.

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, (DEFENDANT) of (ADDRESS), being the Defendant in this case will state as follows:

 

1.       I am (DEFENDANT), the defendant in this matter and the facts in this Witness statement come from my personal knowledge. It is admitted that I was at the time the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

2.       I initially received a letter, from memory, a few weeks after the apparent offence, which stated the driver had been caught out by this trap and should pay the £100.00 parking charge. I ignored this letter as I did not take this seriously due to bad advice given online, and did not keep copy of this letter.

3.       After the initial letter requesting payment of £100, I recall receiving a further letter in June 2018 from what looked like a scam debt collection agency, apparently acting on behalf of Premier Park, named ZZPS. The initial fine had now escalated to £182.00 and I was being threatened with a CCJ and debt collectors coming to my house, none of which they had the power to enforce. As keeper there was no requirement for me to respond to the alarmist notices that appeared to be threatening scam mail in early 2018. This was not an offence or fine from an Authority like a council, and there was no reason or obligation as registered keeper to appeal to what appeared to be scam mail impersonating a parking ticket.

 

4.       I initially received a Letter Of Claim from BW Legal dated 12th July 2019, and responded via email in acknowledgement of this. The letter informed that I was being pursued for a charge in to the amount of £160 rising to an estimated total of £247.84, a ludicrous inflation of the alleged parking charge. In the Beavis case, it was held that the £85 'parking charge' was already significantly inflated for profit and that there were no damages or losses/incidentals that a parking firm not on possession, could lawfully claim. (SEE EVIDENCE A)

 

5.       The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes additional charges for which no detailed explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. (SEE EVIDENCE

 

6.       I have no liability as I was the keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of POFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges. a. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion b. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is the keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and the barrister, Henry Gleenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of keeper liability as set out in Schedule 4.

7.       It is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. I argue that any of the signs would pass Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule.  (SEE EVIDENCE C)

 

8.       The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would need to stand directly in front of them. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. (SEE EVIDENCE C)

 

9.       The signage has been upgraded twice since the apparent offence in December 2017. After the apparent breach the site had been significantly upgraded with additional signage. I counted 7 additional signs added between July 2017 and May 2018. A further sign has been added since May 2018 at the entrance to Subway. Why did the claimant feel the need to upgrade the signage twice at the site if already adequate? I would also argue that they are still positioned to catch out unsuspecting motorists as they are unreadable from a vehicle, do not stand out, nor are they at drivers eye level. (SEE EVIDENCE D)

 

10.   There is evidence that the Claimant had been removing signs and not replacing them in the months before the parking event, and there is nothing to tell people that this is not the Subway car park. (SEE EVIDENCE D)

 

11.   Assuming the first bay on the left is bay 1, the driver reverse parked into bay 4. If all bays are for Vets 4 Pets customers, why only mark the first 2 bays with Vets 4 Pets branded signage? A confusing set up, which goes against the Contra Proferentem rule. (SEE EVIDENCE E)

 

12.   Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that I, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

 

13.   At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass. (SEE EVIDENCE F)

 

14.   Running a hidden ANPR camera data stream, is against the rights and interests of unsuspecting but circumspect visitors to the Subway Restaurant at this site, who are being caught out regularly by this trap.

 

15.   These concealed restrictions are misleading and excessive and tip the balance so far against visitors that there is an imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, which is contrary to the listed Prohibtions in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

16.   The signage at the site in question is woefully inadequate and extremely unclear. The small signs in the car park at the time of the apparent offence do not state clearly that it is affiliated with Premier Park, nor that ANPR camera is in use.

 

17.   The PremierPark affiliated signage within the parking area are equally as hidden and therefore misleading. The unclear signs were not positioned within a driver’s line of sight. Furthermore there are no clear signs that were 'bound to be seen' between where the Defendant believes the car was parked and the entrance to the Subway restaurant. It could be argued the sign at the car park entrance is an exception however when approaching form Tescos the sign is never in eye sight of the driver, and even so the only readable text indicates that the area is Private Land. Why when entering the car park would a driver have any reason to believe this car park was not for Subway customers? (SEE EVIDENCE G)

 

18.   This regime in a car park, that was free for many years and had been used many times before without charge is damaging the reputation of the Subway restaurant, and is surely the epitome of unfairness and unconscionableness. Thus it cannot be excused from the penalty rule by any 'legitimate interest', both taking into account the GDPR data principles meaning and under the Beavis case definition. In addition to various online feedback where drivers appear to have suffered from exactly the sort of concealed 'pitfall or trap' that the Beavis case Judges warned against. (SEE EVIDENCE H)

 

19.   No complicated manipulations of the penalty rule can apply to a standard contract like this one, with quantified damages, otherwise every trader could massage any £5 bill to suddenly become £500.

 

20.   This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA(CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case. a. In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question!

 

21.   It is contended that the signs that were in place at the location were unclear and wordy, yet with the actual terms and 'parking charge' buried in small print, thus being incapable of forming a contract.  In reference to the British Parking Association Code of Practice, in which it states under appendix B, entrance signage: -

 

a.       “The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”

b.       "There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision"

(SEE EVIDENCE C)

 

22.   The amount claimed includes charges that the Claimant has charged without any detailed explanation as to how it has been calculated. There is a discrepancy between the charge for breaching the claimants terms and the amount claimed on the particulars of this claim.

 

Evidence

A – Letter of Claim

B – Protection of freedom act

C – Photographs of signage

D – Google street views of site 2017 until current

E – Photo of marked bay and highlighted signage

F – Relevant text from judgement *****(Or do i need the full 124 page document?)*****

G – Photo of site and sign at car park entrance

H - Google reviews complaining about this trap

Redx

A defence is either as a keeper , not admitting who was driving and relies on POFA , no landowner authority , poor and inadequate signage , the CRA 2015 , etc

Or

As an admitted Driver so remove POFA from the above list

The choice is yours to make , bearing in mind that if the claimant or the judge asks you if you were driving , you cannot lie , refusing to answer will probably create the viewpoint that your silence implies you were the driver and a judge and the claimant will treat you as such

Therefore , you must decide what your strongest points are

A keeper who was not the driver has the most powerful arguments , including the law named POFA , I would have thought you would have understood those key differences by now !!

Your exhibits should be initials plus number , so for example JDW/001 , JDW/002 etc

Umkomaas

If Premier Park's Notice to Keeper was compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), it provides no protection for the keeper, so identifying the driver causes no detriment. Most PPCs are now getting PoFA paperwork in reasonable order, but you have the NtK, not us, to check its compliance. 

If you want an experienced eye to look it over, upload both sides here, redacted of any personal or identifying details. Make sure you leave all the dates showing. 

jacksparrow2000

Unfortunately i didnt keep the NtK, as i just believed alot of advice to put them in the bin and ignore! Probably best to remove item 6 and focus on poor signage and excessive charges then. Thanks.

Umkomaas

If the NtK was from a couple of years ago, it may not have been compliant then (unless we see it, we can't be sure). Have you sent them a SAR?  That will dig it out. So meantime, work on the basis that it wasn't compliant and argue no keeper liability, it won't be fatal to your position even if they did comply. See if you can get the SAR response In sufficient time, but they do have 30 days by law to respond; but note that they won't be marching to the beat of your own drum.

jacksparrow2000

Umkomaas said:

If the NtK was from a couple of years ago, it may not have been compliant then (unless we see it, we can't be sure). Have you sent them a SAR?  That will dig it out. So meantime, work on the basis that it wasn't compliant and argue no keeper liability, it won't be fatal to your position even if they did comply. See if you can get the SAR response In sufficient time, but they do have 30 days by law to respond; but note that they won't be marching to the beat of your own drum.

Thanks, I have just sent them an SAR. I think ill be lucky to receive it in time, time will tell i guess.

beamerguy

FACT ... Parking companies are digging up old tickets because COVID is not just a killer of people, it also kills the income of scammers and their dodgy legals.

BWLegal are in this category and are still desperate to win but they are in denial of their scam
THE SCAM IS THE £60 ADD-ON.
Bargepole is correct, BWLegal have to prove it is legal.  
However, you cannot run the risk of a judge who has skim read your WS, or one who does not have a good understanding of abuse of process.

Hopefully you will have a face to face hearing. If so. the judge will start by asking the claimant for their side of the story and then will ask you.
Regardless of your WS, this is an important time to raise your concerns and saying their claim is unreliable because of ......... you will show a letter you sent asking BWLegal what is their legal authority to add £60.   

You can see that letter here ..

BWLEGAL --- THE SCAM ?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6129744/bwlegal-the-scam/p1?new=1

Don't expect a reply although you might get one with nonsensical rubbish.

This letter you show to the judge bringing abuse of process to the fore prompting him/her to ask the claimant.

 

D_P_Dance

However, you cannot run the risk of a judge who has skim read your WS, or one who does not have a good understanding of abuse of process

If a judge acts thusly he/she   has failed to conduct the case as  required by the law and his/her behaviour should be brought to the attention of  .the regulatory body  

https://www.gov.uk/complain-judge-magistrate-tribunal-coroneri

I made a complaint recently when a judge ignored three letters I sent to him.  After involving my MP I received an  apology and compensation of £100.

jacksparrow2000

beamerguy said:

FACT ... Parking companies are digging up old tickets because COVID is not just a killer of people, it also kills the income of scammers and their dodgy legals.

BWLegal are in this category and are still desperate to win but they are in denial of their scam
THE SCAM IS THE £60 ADD-ON.
Bargepole is correct, BWLegal have to prove it is legal.  
However, you cannot run the risk of a judge who has skim read your WS, or one who does not have a good understanding of abuse of process.

Hopefully you will have a face to face hearing. If so. the judge will start by asking the claimant for their side of the story and then will ask you.
Regardless of your WS, this is an important time to raise your concerns and saying their claim is unreliable because of ......... you will show a letter you sent asking BWLegal what is their legal authority to add £60.   

You can see that letter here ..

BWLEGAL --- THE SCAM ?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6129744/bwlegal-the-scam/p1?new=1

Don't expect a reply although you might get one with nonsensical rubbish.

This letter you show to the judge bringing abuse of process to the fore prompting him/her to ask the claimant.

 

Thanks. I received an email from BW Legal received May 28th,requesting discussion of my defence and upcoming hearing. Ive now replied and informed them im following the courts instruction with regards to witness statement and ive used the template to highlight the abuse of process at the same time. Ive also added this into my witness statement. 

jacksparrow2000

D_P_Dance said:

However, you cannot run the risk of a judge who has skim read your WS, or one who does not have a good understanding of abuse of process

If a judge acts thusly he/she   has failed to conduct the case as  required by the law and his/her behaviour should be brought to the attention of  .the regulatory body  

https://www.gov.uk/complain-judge-magistrate-tribunal-coroneri

I made a complaint recently when a judge ignored three letters I sent to him.  After involving my MP I received an  apology and compensation of £100.

This is concerning and unfortunately the claim will go ahead without attendance according to the paperwork.