Claim Form Received BW Legal for Unauthorised Entry/Parking

brandsoda

KeithP said:

brandsoda said:

I have 2 days left to send it to BWlegal and Court, will it be good to send by post or email will work ?

Email is fine - obviously to the hearing court, not to the CCBC... and of course to the Claimant.
One email to two addressees - that way the Claimant can't deny receipt if the Court has a copy.

any idea about Slough court email address ?

@Fruitcake

Fruitcake

Is it not on any of the correspondence you have received? 

I have never had a PCN, let alone a court claim so the only other thing I could suggest is too look up contact details using a search engine of your choice.

brandsoda

Fruitcake said:

Is it not on any of the correspondence you have received? 

I have never had a PCN, let alone a court claim so the only other thing I could suggest is too look up contact details using a search engine of your choice.

I found that in one of the court correspondence 
enquiries.reading.countycourt@justice.gov.uk

brandsoda

is there any thing I need to attach apart from Witness statement ??
My current WS is of 38 pages where as 11 pages are for Witness statement and rest consist of evidences
any other document(s)

@Fruitcake
@Jenni_D
@holderness
@1505grandad
@KeithP

Coupon-mad

I've only looked at your Costs Assessment thus far.

Did you add in something to your WS about the new statutory Code of Practice and the fact that the Government has banned parking firms and their agents from adding 'costs' on top of the parking charge?

In the Foreword to the new Code, Neil O'Brien MP (who has responsibility for this section of the legislation within the DLUHC) used the phrase: "aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

In the Response to Technical consultation, it was also observed that consumers had pointed out that the DRAs attached to this industry act on a no-win-no-fee basis and the reasons for the ban are explained in a way that helps existing cases too:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-charges-discount-rates-debt-collection-fees-and-appeals-charter-further-technical-consultation/outcome/private-parking-charges-discount-rates-debt-collection-fees-and-appeals-charter-further-technical-consultation-response

The Code's Explanatory document (an Impact Assessment in all but name) is worth reading, too:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice-explanatory-document-how-was-it-developed-and-what-will-it-change

As for your costs assessment, break down your 19 hours into separate smaller groups of single or 2 or 3 hours, dealing with, reading and responding to each stage of the claim.

And to argue for unreasonable conduct you will need a crib sheet of notes at the hearing, summing up the unreasonable conduct in this litigation.  Is there something specific that was unreasonable, apart from filing a meritless claim with exaggerated non-existent (now Govt banned) costs?

brandsoda

for me pointing the unreasonable conduct:
 
I called them explaining the incident after knowing that facts, but they ignored.
I explained them why I wasn't in position to first contact PPC ( family incidents and trauma time ), but they ignored that.

Not sure if that will help or not but in my view that was unreasonably harassing any human while knowing the fact it's just a less than 10 minute stop in client parking. On call they accepted this is less than 10 minutes but still carried the claim and keep sending threatening letters.

does it help ??

Fruitcake

Welcome home C-m.

  

brandsoda

Coupon-mad said:

I've only looked at your Costs Assessment thus far.

Did you add in something to your WS about the new statutory Code of Practice and the fact that the Government has banned parking firms and their agents from adding 'costs' on top of the parking charge?

In the Foreword to the new Code, Neil O'Brien MP (who has responsibility for this section of the legislation within the DLUHC) used the phrase: "aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

In the Response to Technical consultation, it was also observed that consumers had pointed out that the DRAs attached to this industry act on a no-win-no-fee basis and the reasons for the ban are explained in a way that helps existing cases too:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-charges-discount-rates-debt-collection-fees-and-appeals-charter-further-technical-consultation/outcome/private-parking-charges-discount-rates-debt-collection-fees-and-appeals-charter-further-technical-consultation-response

The Code's Explanatory document (an Impact Assessment in all but name) is worth reading, too:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice-explanatory-document-how-was-it-developed-and-what-will-it-change

As for your costs assessment, break down your 19 hours into separate smaller groups of single or 2 or 3 hours, dealing with, reading and responding to each stage of the claim.

And to argue for unreasonable conduct you will need a crib sheet of notes at the hearing, summing up the unreasonable conduct in this litigation.  Is there something specific that was unreasonable, apart from filing a meritless claim with exaggerated non-existent (now Govt banned) costs?

I haven't added anything for the new Statutory code of Practice. 

for 16 Hrs of claim I will try to break it down. Thanks for pointing this out 

Jenni_D

Fruitcake said:

Welcome home C-m.

  

Ditto. You've been missed.

Coupon-mad

Cheers!

I've started to work on a a section for a new, improved template defence which can also be adapted for a WS by changing 'the Defendant' to 'I'.  The OP can adapt the below into a WS.

Based on @bargepole's wording, I am drafting something along these lines now for including in non-ParkingEye defences:

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking operators are required to comply with, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

The Government has clarified that adding 'debt recovery' fees on top of a parking charge is unreasonable and as such, is banned. In a very short section called 'Escalation of costs' the new Code says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."  The Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal and robust, saying this about existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum that their notorious industry variously describes as damages for debt recovery.  These are banned costs which they have neither paid nor incurred.  The Defendant avers that by continuing to pursue claims including this objectionable sum - when this serial litigator Claimant is indisputably aware due to their 'approved operator' membership of an Accredited Parking Association - that these exaggerated 'costs' are banned by the Government, appears to meet the high bar of wholly unreasonable conduct.

The Defendant believes that knowingly inflated claims such as this case should not be allowed to continue.  The Defendant further observes that this conduct by parking firms operating under their previous Codes of Practice (described by several District Judges as 'self-serving') has caused inflated default judgments and consumer harm on a grand scale in recent years.  The Court is invited to strike out the false 'damages/debt recovery' element at the very least and to consider whether the appropriate sanction may be to strike out the entire claim, in order to signal that the Court shares the Government's view regarding one of the most vexatious, greedy and intimidating elements of some members of the private parking industry's conduct in litigation.