Napier Parking/BW Legal, CCBS Claim Form received. Help and guidance very much needed!

Fruitcake

Good point C-m. My suggestion would be to just refer to the dodgy contract terms, and any (brief) reference to the new CoP.

Dotage

Thank you both, for your very constructive reviews, please see attempt No 2  https://www.dropbox.com/s/jywlf5wgfw3i5x2/Redacted SWS (2) 16-03-22 - Copy.docx?dl=0

Fruitcake

Personally, I still think it is too long. I would delete 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and shorten and combine 3, 4, and 7.

You need to get your message across quickly and succinctly. You also need to send it off sooner rather than later, in other words, today.

You will have the opportunity at the hearing to comment on any points the claimant has brought in their WS, so you don't need to go into so much detail with your SWS in my opinion.

Other opinions are available.

Dotage

Thank you Fruitcake, have followed your recomendations, and my SWS is now copied to the Court and the other side, will let you you know of any developments.

Dotage

Hi Guys
Just received a second SWS from bw, please see dropbox link https://www.dropbox.com/s/tddz9y0o3emv3dg/Napier SWS (2) 29-03-22.pdf?dl=0
and this link for the final WS I submitted to the Court https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ax3u764as32yyd/SWS 16-03-22.pdf?dl=0
Any advice or comments, as ever, much appreciated.

Fruitcake

Irrespective of the fact that the claimant has remained a corporate member of the BPA, they are no longer a member of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme. This is the specific wording of the landowner contract.

(1). Service: The supplier agrees that on the site listed in (A) above

...

(b) "Operate in accordance with the British Parking Associations Approved Operator Scheme."

This is a breach of their contract with the landowner. They could state that they are a member of the AA, or RAC, or the Guild of Rocking Horse Makers (which is a real thing), but the fact still remains that they are NOT members of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme, and therefore have failed to comply with the strict requirements of their contract with landowner.

The paralegal repeatedly states, "I am instructed that ..." which is hearsay, yet has provided no proof that their statement is true. It is not within the knowledge of the paralegal and therefore the claimant is put to strict proof that the statements made by the paralegal are true.

I note that the claimant has not refuted the defendant's point that the contract only permits them to pursue a driver through the courts.

Whilst they may have the right to issue a parking charge to a vehicle keeper, their contract with the landowner prohibits them from pursuing a keeper through the courts.

Dotage

Many thanks Fruitcake, I guess the right thing to do now is to add your observations to my crib sheet, and bring them up at the hearing?

Jenni_D

Dotage said:

Many thanks Fruitcake, I guess the right thing to do now is to add your observations to my crib sheet, and bring them up at the hearing?

If it's too close to the hearing for your own SWS then yes.

Fruitcake

Jenni, the OP has already submitted a SWS and the claimant has responded with one of their own.

Dotage, yes, bring these points up at the hearing. The AoS membership is a sort of, "by the way" point. More important is the fact that their contract with the claimant only permits them to pursue a driver to court. You need to spell it out to the judge. Yes, the claimant has the right to issue a parking charge to the keeper, and has the right to pursue a known named driver to court, but has no right to pursue a court claim against the keeper.
If they did, it would be a specific term in the landowner contract..

Dotage

Yes, all understood, and taken on board, thanks again Fruitcake.