Claim Form Received BW Legal for Unauthorised Entry/Parking

KeithP

brandsoda said:

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

Yes, that is the correct one to use in the first instance.
That's on the Slough County Court webpage.
You might want to ask them if that's the right one to use for your purposes.

BomT

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Is it a good idea to add this to the existing WS Template? Thanks 

Coupon-mad

There isn't a WS template.

brandsoda

Hello All,

Hope you are doing good.
After submitting my WS on Thursday, I finally received an WS from Solicitor based on my defence statement submitted earlier. 

Solicitor has mentioned in WS that

"The statement appears to have been cut and paste from websites containing parking forums aiming ti assist motorists contesting parking charges on variety of pre-determined basis as witnessed by solicitor on regular basis and one frequently used forum can be found on  "https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com""

this continues ... 

The result of the defendant’s use of this internet template defence is that both the court and Solicitors have had to review and respond to a large volume of information and most of which is beyond the knowledge of the defendant and therefore nonsensical and/or irrelevant. This is wholly unreasonable from a resourcing point if view given this is a small claims matter for a contractual charge payable for breach of a contractual licence as set out above.

Given the volume of irrelevant material the defendant conduct is contrary to the overriding objectives of the civil procedural rules and as such unreasonable. As the internet content has been copied verbatim, the statement of truth patently cannot cover the pleading.

Copying and pasting a template defence word-for-word does not constitute conduct which permits of a reasonable explanation given that the defendant has signed the same with a statement of truth despite the information not being within their own knowledge. It is therefore submitted that the defendant’s use of ab internet template based defence is unreasonable.

I will share more from WS.

I can found that WS from Solicitor has two part one says 

Witness statement of Paralegal and the other one is Skeleton Argument on behalf of the Claimant.

what's the difference between two.

@fruitcake @KeithP @Coupon-mad

KeithP

That's really laughable, but not unexpected.
Search the Parking Board for the word "nonsensical" to see how often we are shown that "copy and pasted" rubbish in BWL's Witness Statements.

"Copying and pasting a template defence" is as acceptable, if not more so because the Defendant is not a lawyer, as a Claimant's copied and pasted nonsensical drivel.

D_P_Dance

If you think that this solicitor has acted unprofessionally complain here,

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/

Fruitcake

When the template defence has been brought up at the hearing, at least one judge said, "so what?"

Fruitcake

Please show us the claimant's WS. Redact all personal data, but leave in anything already in the public domain.

Upload it to Dropbox or similar and post the link here. It would be especially useful for us to see the alleged landowner contract. Make sure the dropbox account is not in anyone's real name, does not need a password or a requirement to give permission to use viewers' personal data, and does not include anything personal.
I kid you not, one poster used a personal account that included holiday snaps of their children.

brandsoda

Fruitcake said:

Please show us the claimant's WS. Redact all personal data, but leave in anything already in the public domain.

Upload it to Dropbox or similar and post the link here. It would be especially useful for us to see the alleged landowner contract. Make sure the dropbox account is not in anyone's real name, does not need a password or a requirement to give permission to use viewers' personal data, and does not include anything personal.
I kid you not, one poster used a personal account that included holiday snaps of their children.

I have extracted the landowner contract and sharing it to you on PM. would it be possible for you upload on any dropbox location currently in use for these purposes. 
Apology if I am asking too much,  you guys are helping a lot already.

Jenni_D

Dropbox is an individual thing - there is no community Dropbox location; at least not for this forum.