BW Legal County Court Claim Form

Redx

The SAR reply should obtain the NTK which will or should have entry and exit times on it plus other possibly useful information

The defence is a text only statement , nothing else is filed , just the defence by email only when completed

The DQ stage comes after the defence is filed , again by email to the ccbcaq email address , same as the defence

Next year will come the WS plus Exhibits plus summary costs assessment stage , prior to the hearing

At the actual hearing , everything is considered , from both sides

Hope that clears up any confusion

Ps , those signs are forbidding signs , no parking contract is offered to you , no consideration , no agreement by both sides , no contract

Meaning it's a Penalty , not a parking contract

Private companies cannot levy penalties
that is the penalty rule. 

PPS , when you post your defence on here for critique , only post the amended paragraphs from the Coupon mad template , not all of it , we are checking your work , not hers

Sam_was_here

Coupon-mad said:

I will then append Para 4 to Para 18 from CouponMad's Defence template here.  I read through these points and although I see there is some overlap between Para 4 to Para 18 from CouponMad's Defence template and the 21 Paragraphs I pasted above in my defence, I am hoping that wouldn't be an issue?

Your first defence effort in your first post was better.  The one you've just posted for critique is ANCIENT and mentions the IPC Code of Practice (Premier Park are not in the IPC).  It's also badly written IMHO, long since binned as an example on this forum.

Many Thanks Coupon-Mad, I will stick to my original defence then, which I will embed as Para 3 in your comprehensive template.
May I request some guidance on whether I should add another point to my defence, please see below. As I am not entirely sure if I kept the Engine and the lights on for the entire duration I was in the car park, I do remember though, debating in my head, if I should switch off the Engine and lights, just cant remember what I decided later on. The photos of my car in the letters sent by BW showed the tail-lights on but I cant be absolutely sure if I decided to switch off the lights at a later point and whether they have any pictures to disprove this assertion.

"To the best of his recollection, the Defendant kept the engine running and kept the lights on while in the car park, which was for no more than a few minutes."

Is there any value in adding the above or is it best excluded?
Also, I am working on the WS based on the template in the Newbie section. The date of claim was 10th Nov so I am hoping to have both the Defence and the WS formulated and posted for critiquing in the next few days, that way I can file my defence on the 10th Dec with some margin. I understand I will still have a few days after that to solidify the WS but I am keen to prepare both simultaneously to ensure they are complete and consistent. Many thanks  to everyone here for all their support so far.

Redx

The WS won't be needed for months unless you won't be here to send it

The defence and then the DQ should be done this month , then it will be spring or summer for the WS plus Exhibits plus summary costs assessment stage prior to the court hearing next year !!

But it's good to prepare

I would think that the WS stage may be the time to talk about events on the Day , if the vehicle was onsite then it's rare to elaborate in a defence

Engine on or off , people in the vehicle or not , who really cares ?? Stopped for a period of time is parked !!

Coupon-mad

Yes I don't think it's needed.  You can elaborate in the WS in 2021.

Sam_was_here

Redx said:

The SAR reply should obtain the NTK which will or should have entry and exit times on it plus other possibly useful information

The defence is a text only statement , nothing else is filed , just the defence by email only when completed

The DQ stage comes after the defence is filed , again by email to the ccbcaq email address , same as the defence

Next year will come the WS plus Exhibits plus summary costs assessment stage , prior to the hearing

At the actual hearing , everything is considered , from both sides

Hope that clears up any confusion

Ps , those signs are forbidding signs , no parking contract is offered to you , no consideration , no agreement by both sides , no contract

Meaning it's a Penalty , not a parking contract

Private companies cannot levy penalties
that is the penalty rule. 

PPS , when you post your defence on here for critique , only post the amended paragraphs from the Coupon mad template , not all of it , we are checking your work , not hers

Many thanks for your guidance Redx and CouponMad .
Thanks also Redx for providing an overview of the approx timelines, I guess I should then focus on finalizing my defence in readiness for its submission deadline which I believe is 12 Dec 2020 (based on the Claim Form Issue date of 10th Nov 2020), and simultaneously work on the DQ.

Based on the guidance and feedback I have received so far, the only additions from me to CouponMad's template are to:

•  Para 2 and Para 3 to reflect the details specific to my case (thanks to Le_kirk)  
• And an additional Para 4 to reference the "JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES" case (thanks to Fruitcake) :

2.           It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.  

3.           On the night of the 6th Nov 2019 while on the way to his friend’s place the Defendant had to stop the car to deal with a minor passenger being (violently) ill.

The Defendant took the first turn into a car park behind the High street in an emergency to attend to this minor passenger.

The car park was completely dark, and the signage was not adequately illuminated.

 The Defendant did not get out of the car as he did not intend to park there or stay there for any extended period.

4. The defendant relies upon the Oxford County Court decision in JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016 where Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats

@Redx you mention - 
"Ps , those signs are forbidding signs , no parking contract is offered to you , no consideration , no agreement by both sides , no contract". 
Should this be reflected in the defence  as well, if yes, are the below two points pertinent in conveying this argument, I have copied these from another post, should these be reworded in someway?:

1.            The signs erected on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.

2.            The Particulars of Claim do not give any reasons why the Claimant requires a payment other than it results from ‘breaching the terms of parking on the land’. Signage displayed on ADDRESS are forbidding signs that cannot create a contract. In the cases of B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B, B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L it was demonstrated that forbidding signage at residential parking spaces did not create a contract.

KeithP

Sam_was_here said:

I guess I should then focus on finalizing my defence in readiness for its submission deadline which I believe is 12 Dec 2020 (based on the Claim Form Issue date of 10th Nov 2020),...

Why do you believe that?

On 13 November at 1:35PM I wrote on your thread...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 14th December 2020 to file your Defence.

A filing deadline is always going to be on a working day.

Sam_was_here

KeithP said:

Sam_was_here said:

I guess I should then focus on finalizing my defence in readiness for its submission deadline which I believe is 12 Dec 2020 (based on the Claim Form Issue date of 10th Nov 2020),...

Why do you believe that?

On 13 November at 1:35PM I wrote on your thread...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 14th December 2020 to file your Defence.

A filing deadline is always going to be on a working day.

Many thanks Keith, I had made a calendar entry for myself for the Saturday before the deadline as Mondays tend to be manic at work, 14th Dec is the true deadline as you had previously worked out.

Sam_was_here

Folks,
Trust this post finds you well and safe. My Defence submission deadline is Monday the 14th Dec 2020. So may I please request your final critique and guidance on the below text in totality, and in particular whether paras 5 and 6 are adequate/necessary to address the point around forbidding signs.

Based on the guidance and feedback I have received so far, the additions from me to CouponMad's template are to:

•  Para 2 and Para 3 to reflect the details specific to my case (thanks to Le_kirk)  
• An additional Para 4 to reference the "JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES" case (thanks to Fruitcake) 
• And additional Paras 5 and 6 to address the point around forbidding signs (thanks to Redx)

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.  

3. On the night of the 6th Nov 2019 while on the way to his friend’s place the Defendant had to stop the car to deal with a minor passenger being (violently) ill.

The Defendant took the first turn into a car park behind the High street in an emergency to attend to this minor passenger.

The car park was completely dark, and the signage was not adequately illuminated.

 The Defendant did not get out of the car as he did not intend to park there or stay there for any extended period.

4. The defendant relies upon the Oxford County Court decision in JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016 where Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats

5. The signs erected on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.

6.The Particulars of Claim do not give any reasons why the Claimant requires a payment other than it results from ‘breaching the terms of parking on the land’. Signage displayed on ADDRESS are forbidding signs that cannot create a contract. In the cases of B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B, B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L it was demonstrated that forbidding signage at residential parking spaces did not create a contract.

Many thanks again for your help so far.

Best Regards

Sam

Coupon-mad

Look good except make all this one single paragraph and change it to 'child' the second time (as shown) to make it read more clearly:

3.  On the night of the 6th Nov 2019 while on the way to his friend’s place the Defendant had to stop the car to deal with a minor passenger being (violently) ill.  The Defendant took the first turn into a car park behind the High street in an emergency to attend to the child.. The car park was completely dark, and the signage was not adequately illuminated.   The Defendant did not get out of the car as he did not intend to park there or stay there for any extended period.  

and you should explain why you are relying on the Jopson appeal case, because it's really HHJ Harris' definition of parking you are pointing out (the case itself is not like your circumstances otherwise).  I'd suggest this that throws in Lord Neuberger's view as well:

4.  The issues in the Defendant's case are similar to the sort of temporary 'vicissitude' that the respected Senior Circuit Judge, Charles Harris QC, had in mind when he found as fact in Jopson v Home Guard [2016] B9GF0A9E (on Appeal at Oxford County Court) that a temporary stop as part of the normal action of coming & going of daily life is not something that can give rise to a 'parking charge' nor even be considered by an average, reasonable person as 'parking'.    HHJ Harris attempted to define parking in that appeal case and the transcript of his decision will be provided in evidence.  Similarly, in Moncrieff and Another v Jamieson and others: HL 17 Oct 200, at para 123 Lord Neuberger held that to 'park vehicles' was 'to station them on a longer term basis' as opposed to 'the coming and going of motor vehicles along the way...[including]...the right to turn round such vehicles, and to station such vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading...'  The Defendant contends that the vehicle was merely stationed to attend to an ill child and this is not parking, and no contract was agreed or even seen, to pay £100 for the privilege.

Sam_was_here

Coupon-mad said:

Look good except make all this one single paragraph and change it to 'child' the second time (as shown) to make it read more clearly:

3.  On the night of the 6th Nov 2019 while on the way to his friend’s place the Defendant had to stop the car to deal with a minor passenger being (violently) ill.  The Defendant took the first turn into a car park behind the High street in an emergency to attend to the child.. The car park was completely dark, and the signage was not adequately illuminated.   The Defendant did not get out of the car as he did not intend to park there or stay there for any extended period.  

and you should explain why you are relying on the Jopson appeal case, because it's really HHJ Harris' definition of parking you are pointing out (the case itself is not like your circumstances otherwise).  I'd suggest this that throws in Lord Neuberger's view as well:

4.  The issues in the Defendant's case are similar to the sort of temporary 'vicissitude' that the respected Senior Circuit Judge, Charles Harris QC, had in mind when he found as fact in Jopson v Home Guard [2016] B9GF0A9E (on Appeal at Oxford County Court) that a temporary stop as part of the normal action of coming & going of daily life is not something that can give rise to a 'parking charge' nor even be considered by an average, reasonable person as 'parking'.    HHJ Harris attempted to define parking in that appeal case and the transcript of his decision will be provided in evidence.  Similarly, in Moncrieff and Another v Jamieson and others: HL 17 Oct 200, at para 123 Lord Neuberger held that to 'park vehicles' was 'to station them on a longer term basis' as opposed to 'the coming and going of motor vehicles along the way...[including]...the right to turn round such vehicles, and to station such vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading...'  The Defendant contends that the vehicle was merely stationed to attend to an ill child and this is not parking, and no contract was agreed or even seen, to pay £100 for the privilege.

Hi Coupon-mad,
Many thanks for this guidance and the detailed explanation as well. I will make these revisions/additions to the defence now.
On a separate note, I received the response on the SAR from their DPO this evening and it mentions the duration of stay as 9 mins, which is consistent with what I remember. Also, there are two pictures of my car, one at the time of entry and the other when I exited the car park, from these dark/grainy pictures its easy to see that apart from the head/tail lights of my car there was no other source of light in the car park. Hopefully this should help when I formulate the WS.
Many thanks to everyone for all the support I have received here so far once again.
Have a good weekend!!
Best Regards
Sam