BW Legal / Link Parking Court Summons on Resident Parking Permit Land (I have a Permit!)

marketsqhero

Ok, just about to start my WS and gather evidence for the bundle.
1) If the claimant doesn't file their reply to defence by the 6th is it thrown out?
2) For my WS, I'm unsure what to put. This is just "the facts" yes? I don't want to incriminate myself, but the facts are I did park without my pass, I know that the signs exist. My argument is primacy of contract due to the AST overriding the fact I didn't have a pass on display. THr reason for that was misplaced pass on a Saturday AM and letting agency not open until Monday AM to ask for a replacement.
3) My evidence bundle is purely just the relevant section of the AST?

I think I'm a little confused as most people are arguing bad signage, or right to wait, etc, but mine is none of those.
Thanks again

Le_Kirk

Your WS is "in support of my defence as already filed" and so it must back up and support, with evidence, what you put in the defence.  If your AST (or maybe the head lease) does not state specifically that you MUST display a permit, then there is no need to do so, it is merely displayed out of courtesy.  You need to provide the judge with the background to the issue, for example, it is a residential area with parking controlled by fob/key/permit and you parked in your allocated slot as per your AST and here is the evidence.

marketsqhero

I have received today by post a copy of the "Reply to Defence" by BW Legal. I'm not quite sure where to go now as they have ripped apart every paragraph! Do they have a template that they use in this (i.e. are their reply to defence letters cut and paste jobs, or do they have valid points)?

I used the template defence letter in the newbies section for reference, something which they seem to have also picked up on with this section:

"Paragraph 4 is denied. The Claimant's claim meets the conditions for starting a claim using MCOL. The signage makes it clear that failure to comply with the Terms and Conditions would result in a PCN and the signage also details the debt recovery costs. The Claimant is not claiming "costs/damages on an indemnity basis." The Defendant has failed to set out why the claim runs contrary to the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), without the necessary analysis of the applicable evidence against the Act as required by section 62. This is not specific, and clearly an example of a template defence being used without any thought. Should the Defendant wish to pursue this line of Defence, the Claimant reserves the right to cross examine the Defendant to have them explain the application of the Act to the evidence, so that it, and the court, might better understand the allegations."

They also mention Beavis quite a lot, and that Somerfield precedes Beavis so " clearly the latter Supreme Court authority prevails."

I don't fancy typing it all out, should I scan and upload for your perusal? 

Finally, am I fighting the claim on all those things now, or purely going for "primacy of contract" with my AST? They mention
"The Defendant's allegations within paragraph 3 are denied and the Defendant is put to proof of his right to park within the Car Park. The Defendant is required to disclose documentary proof of his right to park within 14 days of service of this Reply." 

Help
Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

I have received today by post a copy of the "Reply to Defence" by BW Legal. I'm not quite sure where to go now as they have ripped apart every paragraph! Do they have a template that they use in this (i.e. are their reply to defence letters cut and paste jobs, or do they have valid points)?

There are no valid points.  Yawn,,,calm down. They have a template reply to our template - guess why?! Because our template is strong.

Send proof of your right to park, so you play the game nicely.

They also mention Beavis quite a lot, and that Somerfield precedes Beavis so " clearly the latter Supreme Court authority prevails."

It doesn't.  The Somerfield case was the only one that dealt with added false costs and thereafter, ParkingEye stopped adding costs on top and so it was never an issue in Beavis (the cases are chalk and cheese).  You KNOW this, you've read the defence; you know I cover that!

I don't fancy typing it all out, should I scan and upload for your perusal? 

No thanks, not again, spare us pleeeease!! We've seen it umpteen zillion times, as would you on any BW Legal thread recently!

marketsqhero

Hi;

Received the document bundle by post from BW Legal today. Apart from the usual pictures of the car / PCN tickets / sign pictures I had a copy of the agreement between Link Parking and the Landlord which I've attached below. Is there anything in this which affects me? Specifically looking at the section 3.3 about permits, what I find odd is that the contract is between Landlord (Client) and Link Parking (Company), yet 3.3 speaks specifically of the Client displaying a permit, not any resident. Am I misreading this?

Also, my AST which has been requested, I assume I can email that? Does the court need to be copied in or do they just need it as part of the bundle? Finally, do they need the complete AST or just the page with the Parking terms on?

Thanks for your help

Darren 

Coupon-mad

That's not the parts of the contract we'd want to see.  Page one (the parties) and the final page (the signatories and dates) are more important.  Surely it's the same as this thread?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78244933/#Comment_78244933

Re the AST if you are emailing it, email the whole thing but draw attention to a certain page.  And if you are including it in the court bundle you don't have to send it now anyway, just append it as one of your exhibits with your WS and that goes to the other side and to the court, anyway.

SayNoToPCN

Indeed, you are not tied to their deadline of 14 days either. They can ask, they cannot require

marketsqhero

Here's a link to the full bundle which I've scanned. 35 pages in total, mainly photos of the car. Pages 1 & 2 being the contract between Link Parking and NFU Mutual (Landlord)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/61zjmjzwy2qa0jl/BW Legal v DJ Moore.pdf?dl=0

There is also a picture of the parking area (p3) with what are supposed to be the placement of signage marked on it. I can confirm (as I've just been around for a look), that a number of those signs do not exist!

Thanks again for all your assistance

Umkomaas

The first page of the landowner contract completed by hand hasn't come out very well. Can you confirm whether the year showing it became effective was handwritten as 2017 or 2019?

marketsqhero

To be honest, the page in the bundle they sent seems to be a print of a colour scan and isn’t very legible. In fact I can’t tell what they “signed on behalf off” says at all!

The final figure on the date isn’t legible however I’ve lived here since Feb 2018 and the parking signs where in place then so it would fit with it being 23 October 2017. The building was competed in August 2017 and I believe the parking enforcement came into place a couple of months later which is why it’s not specifically mentioned in the AST.

I’m surprised they haven’t updated it in the last 3 years!