COURT CLAIM FORM ISSUED. BW Legal and Parking Property Management Ltd.

alekalo

Hi all,
I have recently received a Claim Form (Claimant being Parking and Property Management, acting through BW Legal). This is regarding a PCN received on 10/09/20 at 3am for a vehicle to which I am the registered keeper. I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time, as it is insured to other drivers in the family, and I have not disclosed who the driver was. The driver of the vehicle at the time had parked in a Visitors bay during a visit to their partner's residence, however they were not displaying the 'visitor scratch card' that was supposedly required. I think it may be important to note that this car park is gated and accessible only to those with authorised access via a fob - thus de facto, you may only park there with authorised access. Furthermore, the driver had requested their partner to get hold of some of these 'visitor scratch cards' but apparently the offices were closed due to COVID lockdowns etc. The signage in the car park also does not detail how /where to obtain visitor scratch cards. 

BW Legal wrote to me many times, to which I ignored them and hoped they would tire. I wrote to Parking and Property Management and requested a SAR. 

The court claim I have now received is £104.88 with an additional £60 'recovery costs'. I understand from existing threads that this £60 is somewhat of a bogus add-on and so I plan on arguing that in my defence. Along with the Court Fees and Legal representative's costs I am now looking at a total amount of £239.88. 

I am just filing an Acknowledgement of Service now and am preparing to draft my defence (thank you to all for the excellent templates), however I am in need of some advice as I am feeling wary about the strength of my defence. I regret now not paying the initial £60 but I am too stubborn and found it ridiculous to pay for a space in a half empty car park for which the driver had authorisation to be in. 

Does anyone have any feedback for my situation? Is my defence likely to hold up in court? I am extremely stressed and busy with other life problems at the moment (aren't we all) and a part of me just wants to pay the astronomical amount and have it done with -- but to do so would negate waiting it out as I have done. 

D_P_Dance

Ho di you get a visitors badge.  How does an emergency plumber get one on Christmas Day?  It looks like an unfair term in a consumer contract, (google it).

The court claim I have now received is £104.88 with an additional £60 'recovery costs'. I
which are almost cetainly unlawful.  Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

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

beamerguy

alekalo said:

The court claim I have now received is £104.88 with an additional £60 'recovery costs'. I understand from existing threads that this £60 is somewhat of a bogus add-on and so I plan on arguing that in my defence. Along with the Court Fees and Legal representative's costs I am now looking at a total amount of £239.88. 

Make sure you read the NEWBIES thread

As you know the £60 is a fake.  The Supreme court ruled the parking ticket charge.......
"The main reason for the charge was to meet the costs of enforcing the parking rules"

Go this thread and you can watch the Supreme court making this ruling. With the Parking Eye v Beavis case
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6265050/beavis-insight-motorway-services-insight-and-claims-lost-in-court/p1?new=1

BWLegal cannot over rule the decision of the Supreme court ?

Then read and study why the likes of BWLegal lose claims in court. Most are prettty must the same and it will be now up to a judge to rule the fate of BWLegal. for fakery
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6265050/beavis-insight-motorway-services-insight-and-claims-lost-in-court/p1?new=1

 Pay attention to one particular case ...
EXCEL v WILKINSON ..... claim struck out for ABUSE OF PROCESS.  DDJ Jackson who is now HHJ Jackson made this ruling.  
https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Then, mainly for a good laugh about BWL, look at trustpilot
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/bwlegal.co.uk
96% BAD REVIEWS

All told, you have enough information on this forum to go forth and get BWLegal another spanking
TAKE YOUR TIME and ask questions when you want

NB: The information you will read is something BWLegal don't want you know

alekalo

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

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

Hi,

Issue date is 12th May 2021

KeithP

alekalo said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

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

Hi,

Issue date is 12th May 2021

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th May, you have until Tuesday 1st June to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th June 2021 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

D_P_Dance

I am now looking at a total amount of £239.88. 
Look at this instead and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

 

alekalo

D_P_Dance said:

I am now looking at a total amount of £239.88. 
Look at this instead and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

 

Hi D P Dance,
Thanks so much for this advice, I am now drafting a letter to my MP. Do you think it would be good to include this in my defence also? E.g. mention this case and that I have been in communication with my MP about it?

Coupon-mad

No, a defence is not for adding cases to.  There's more than enough already in the template defence and as you know (if you've looked) you just need to add facts to it.

That case will be useful for WS stage.  This is all standard and the process is explained in the NEWBIES thread and the TEMPLATE DEFENCE thread.

beamerguy

alekalo said:

D_P_Dance said:

I am now looking at a total amount of £239.88. 
Look at this instead and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

 

Hi D P Dance,
Thanks so much for this advice, I am now drafting a letter to my MP. Do you think it would be good to include this in my defence also? E.g. mention this case and that I have been in communication with my MP about it?

It'd ok writing to your MP as long as they are not brain dead and are willing to bring this up in the House.

No point in telling a judge ..... they will not be interested

alekalo

Hi again to all, 
I am now drafting my defence and aim to have it sent out soon. I will attach it below and would be very appreciative if anyone had some feedback on this. Despite not being the driver of the vehicle at the time (it was my daughter and I am the registered keeper) I think it may be a stronger defence to just go along the lines that I am registered keeper and driver, and I am defending on the basis of being an authorised visitor who was unable to obtain a visitor scratch card (Fob Key access/ gated residential area, Scratch card unable to be obtained as office was closed, signage unclear with no instruction on how to gain visitor scratch card). 

Please do let me know your thoughts on this draft defence, I have used previous templates on here and adapted:

In The County Court XXXXX (case number)

 

BETWEEN:

Parking and Property Management Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the car park at xxxxxxxxxx.

3.1. It is noted that the car park, on the date of alleged contravention, has a designated visitor bay clearly marked by a ‘V’, in which the vehicle was unmistakably parked in. Other bays had designated house numbers.

3.2.  The car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents, and a general area for residents who do not have an allocated space. Entry to the underground parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there. As the driver was a known and authorised visitor to a resident of XXX, the driver was de facto permitted to park as a visitor having used a key fob to enter the gated premises.
3.3. The signage did not stipulate in any way the contract to which the claimant was proposing with regards to the visitor parking bay.
3.4. Parking & Property Management Ltd have not communicated, nor issued a process defining how to utilise the clearly marked, designated visitor bay. Signage makes reference to a ‘visitor scratch card’, but no information or instruction is provided as to how a visitor would obtain this ‘scratch card’ in order to display it. Furthermore, the resident of the building, Mr. XXX, for whom the driver was an authorized visitor of, had made previous attempts to contact the parking management and to request a ‘visitor scratch card’. Mr XXX was unable to make contact with parking management due to office closures as a result of the national COVID-19 lockdown. Therefore the company has provided the facility for visitor parking, yet have not stipulated any clear or practical method to establish an arrangement to use the visitor parking bay.
3.5. In summary, the claimant has provided a visitor parking bay facility, yet does not stipulate the conditions set by using it. Yet the claimant saw fit to issue a PCN despite this. One can only question the motive of the company to conceal the requirements, and yet still issue a PCN at xxxxam on a xxxx morning when there is no-one around.

4. No relevant obligation, and hence contract was in place with regards to parking on this land base case, and additionally with the visitor parking bay. A relevant contract means “a contract between the driver and a person who is the owner or occupier of the land”. The Claimant has not demonstrated that they have the authority of the occupier or owner of the site to enter into contracts with people who park their cars in the car park, and that it was a valid and enforceable contract. The Claimant did not set the requirements, nor basis to propose a contract with regards to the visitor bay. Pace Vs. Lengyel (May 2017 C7GF6E3R) concluded the requirement of a valid contract.

5.1. Further and in the alternative, 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.

5.2. 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 anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Even if the writing on the sign was readable, the signage is in such a position that any driver must look away from where they are going in order to even see the sign itself, as it is above eye level in a vehicle. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5.3. Clause 13 (1) of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 states that a contract is not binding on a consumer if the correct information is not provided ‘in a clear and comprehensible manner’, and if information is presented on a durable medium it must be ‘legible’. Therefore, it is denied that the Claimant's signage complied with in formation requirements laid down in the Consumer Rights Regulations 2013. 

5.3. The British Parking Association ("BPA") Code of Practice sets the requirements for entrance signs. The following requirements are mandatory:
(a) The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

7.1. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.
7.2. 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 an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Such costs are not permitted.
7.3. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

7.4. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £164.88, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

8. In summary it is the defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit and has no prospect of success. Accordingly, the court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4


I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Name
Signature
Date