Defence - Countrywide Parking Management & BW Legal

jrhys

Morning,
This forum and its contributors is and are amazing and I wish I had read it sooner.
I appreciate any and all help. Apologies for the length of post, but it needs to fit a lot in.

Background & Timeline:
08/01/2020 - I parked, for the first time of the year, around the side of a block of flats that I used to live in, and went to work. When I got back I had a £60 windscreen ticket from Countrywide Parking Management (CPM). I had continued to park there since moving out c. 9 months before without incident and this day felt no different - aside from what looked like someone spray painting a couple of spaces around the back of the flats - which was a sensible way to encourage straighter parking and something I had considered doing myself when I lived there so thought nothing of it. There were certainly no signs on my way in or my walk to work. I was in a rush (and hadn't read this forum) so I just left, without taking pictures or snooping around. I checked, and there were no signs on my way out. When I lived there, there were no parking restrictions aside from an old, rusty residents only sign when I moved in c. 2017 and that was removed whilst I lived there. No one had ever got a parking ticket to my knowledge. I put the ticket in a drawer and figured I'd get round to sorting it. I drove past at some point in the next couple of weeks and there was a sign up on the drive in - if it had've been there before, I'd've seen it and not parked! 
07/02/2020 - NTK from CPM with photo of my car saying PCN was £100 - ignored.
06/03/2020 - Final Notice from CPM - ignored.
19/03/2020 - Demand from Trace DR for £160 - ignored.
14/04/2020 - Final Demand from Trace DR for £160  - ignored.
14/05/2020 - Demand from Trace DR for £160 - ignored.
01/06/2020 - Demand from Trace DR for £160 - ignored.
09/07/2020 - BW Legal - instalment plan offer - £160 - ignored.
10/08/2020 - BW Legal - instalment plan offer - £160 - ignored.
07/09/2020 - BW Legal - instalment plan offer - £160 - ignored.
06/10/2020 - BW Legal - Letter of Claim - est. £244.54 - ignored.
17/11/2020 - BW Legal - Notice of County Court Claim Issued - £247.52 - ignored.
17/11/2020 - County Court Claim Form - I nearly paid out of fear and hassle. Then I read around on this forum.
20/11/2020 - I submitted an SAR to CPM and BW. I also submitted an AoS, which was received on 23/11/2020.
21/11/2020 - I received an SAR from CPM with pictures of my car before and after PCN, and a sign - but I've no idea where that sign is from and there's no indication in the picture.

Today and my request for advice:
I'm writing my defence using the latest template, which I've not attempted to change aside from to reflect my specific case. Could you please pass opinion on the sections I've amended: 2, 3 and 13; that I've set out below?
I'm not sure whether section 16 is relevant, and I'm not sure whether I would intend to seek both 17a and 17b. 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.     At no time on the date in question did the Defendant see any signage indicating that the site in question was subject to terms and conditions restricting parking nor that there were conspicuous indications that the area in which the Defendant parked was – as claimed – a “No Parking Area”. The Defendant parked in space known to be vacant and suitable for parking as the Defendant had parked there on occasion in the preceding months, without issue and without knowledge or sight of any terms and conditions. As a former resident at the block of flats which the parking area serves, the Defendant was well aware of the parking positioning required to ensure ease of access and egress and parked accordingly. The Claimant has provided a photograph of a sign purported to be at the site in question, but provides no evidence to suggest that the Defendant did, or was able to, see the signage or that the signage was conspicuous and placed at entry to the site.

13.       The Claimant displayed no conspicuous signage visible on the Defendant's path from road to photographed parking position to pedestrian egress and out again. The sign that the Claimant has presented as evidence has vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

Please let me know if there's anything I can provide to help you help me.

And a thank you for the work you've all done for others.

Defendant.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Coupon-mad

I'd make this far more specific:

3.    The Defendant is familiar with this car park and used it for many years, partly when a resident at the adjacent flats and also afterwards, in the knowledge that the bays were open to all, unallocated and unrestricted.  The bays were never full so there was no reason to believe there was any issue.  At best, given the Defendant was no longer a resident on the material date, the Defendant could be considered a trespasser but that is a matter of tort, open to the landowner to sue for damages.  This Claimant has not pleaded their case on that basis and are not the landowner, they are strangers to the Defendant. This is because there were no signs up (at all) that day.  The Claimant has provided a photograph of a sign purported to be at the site in question, but the Defendant avers that any signs were added after the event, and likely to have been added that day.  This is because the Defendant did notice a person spray painting a couple of spaces, which was a sensible way to encourage straighter parking and something the Defendant had considered doing when they lived there.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of their maintenance records showing the date and time that the new signs were put up that month.  The Defendant avers that this was after the car was already parked and that a predatory ticketing spree then took place, charging the drivers of any car already parked there, none of whom could be bound by terms because they were only displayed later that day, if at all.  In fact, no signs were obvious until about two weeks later (when the Defendant passed by and saw a new entrance sign for the first time) so at best, it is believed that the Claimant may have put one or two signs up that day when painting the bay lines, and took the opportunity to make money out of drivers who had had no opportunity to learn of any terms.

beamerguy

Seems like yet another case where BWLegal are lacking in facts
Of course they are adding a fake £60 again which you must point to the judge if it gets that far as they would be wise to discontinue .....    they read this forum which could well make up their mind

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

D_P_Dance

Have ypu complained to your MP?

jrhys

Again, wonderful response thanks.
KeithP - issue date was 17/11/2020

D_P_Dance - I have not yet. It's a job for next week. There's plenty of inspiration on here for content so shouldn't take too long

beamerguy - when you say point out to the judge: should I be adding any standard text to the defence since it is BWL charging the £60 and they've been reprimanded in the past for it?

coupon-mad - thanks for that. there are a few amends I need to make since I don't think it was quite as predatory as it has come across to you:
a. I saw no signs up that day, but I can't be sure there weren't any lurking round a corner (which I suspect was the case, given their photograph of one, timestamped the same as the photos of my car)

b. I didn't see someone painting the lines. I just saw that there were some new lines since the last time I'd been.

Coupon-mad

OK, put it right so that it is true.

KeithP

jrhys said:

KeithP - issue date was 17/11/2020

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 21st December 2020 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Le_Kirk

jrhys said:

a. I saw no signs up that day, but I can't be sure there weren't any lurking round a corner (which I suspect was the case, given their photograph of one, timestamped the same as the photos of my car)
b. I didn't see someone painting the lines. I just saw that there were some new lines since the last time I'd been.

Just make sure you say, if you are defending as driver, if not use driver not defendant: -

a. I the defendant saw no signs up that day, but I the defendant can't be sure there weren't any lurking round a corner (which I suspect was the case, given their photograph of one, timestamped the same as the photos of my car)
b. I the defendant didn't see anyone someone painting the lines. I the defendant just saw that there were some new lines since the last time I'd he'd been.

beamerguy

jrhys said:

beamerguy - when you say point out to the judge: should I be adding any standard text to the defence since it is BWL charging the £60 and they've been reprimanded in the past for it?

YES you make sure the judge knows about the fakery.
Since the BWLegal appeal in Salisbury, there is no doubt that the county courts have been told not to just strike out the case for abuse of process.
So, Judges now look more carefully at things like signs etc etc.  This gives them the chance to a reasonable reason why the case is dismissed. Judges know it's abuse of process, they just give a different reason to dismiss the case. 

Problem BWLegal have is never knowing which judge will do this now.  They still add fake amounts and fail to understand that it's like lighting a fuse on a firework.  They continually walk into the fire and so must expect cases to be dismissed.

YES ..... LET THE JUDGE KNOW ABOUT THE FAKERY

Coupon-mad

You don't need to 'add' anything to the template defence. It already covers it.  You will need to understand and be ready to use the P/Eye v Somerfield paragraph from the High Court later, at your hearing, and to point out that the Semark-Jullien case is not as it was pained by the Claimant, but is as set out in your defence - a damp squib for the industry that merely set a case back for a hearing rather than a strike out.