Claim Form BW Legal

D_P_Dance

Have you complained to your MP?

Guidance1

D_P_Dance said:

Have you complained to your MP?

I havent, what would i complain about it being an unfair ticket? would that be my local MP or the MP's for Manchester City Centre where the car park is? 

D_P_Dance

I havent, what would i complain about it being an unfair ticket?

Yes, but explain why you think that it is unfair.

would that be my local MP or the MP's for Manchester City Centre where the car park is? 

Your MP.  

KeithP

Guidance1 said:

KeithP said:

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

Hi KeithP. The issue date is the 5th October although i only received the letter yesterday (7th)

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th October, you have until Monday 25th October to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Do not file an AoS before 9th October, but otherwise 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 in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th November 2021 to file your Defence.
That's over 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.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Guidance1

KeithP said:

Guidance1 said:

KeithP said:

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

Hi KeithP. The issue date is the 5th October although i only received the letter yesterday (7th)

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th October, you have until Monday 25th October to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Do not file an AoS before 9th October, but otherwise 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 in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th November 2021 to file your Defence.
That's over 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.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Thanks Keith, great advice which is appreciated. Just need to put together a credible defence now. 

Coupon-mad

Easy stuff, template defence with a few facts and what @bargepole already told you to say. Job done.

Guidance1

Coupon-mad said:

Easy stuff, template defence with a few facts and what @bargepole already told you to say. Job done.

Thanks @Coupon-mad i will file the AoS this afternoon and work on my defence draft. 

Guidance1

Coupon-mad said:

Easy stuff, template defence with a few facts and what @bargepole already told you to say. Job done.

Morning @Coupon-mad- i am drafting my defence and looking back through previous correspondents with BW Legal. My defence is based on it being a genuine mistake which i can demonstrate as i paid via paybyphone. The mistake was caused from clear ambiguity with the naming on the app (two called store street) and the fact the car park is opposite, as well as only one car park shown on the paybyphone map. Signage for the actual parking code is limited to the two pay machine which isn't a lot given the size of the car park.  

BW Legal will simply state its my responsibility to ensure i pay at the correct car park, and its my responsibility to keep my address up to date - which is hard for me to argue with. My circumstances at the time (moving house in depth of pandemic) meant i was in temporary accommodation so didn't receive the first ticket from NCP, only found out once Trace followed it up to my new address. Wasn't given a chance to appeal formally. 

Do you have any experience of similar mistakes going to court, would a judge accept such a defence or would they agree that i should have done my duediligence and got the correct parking code? Any recommendations to strengthen my case are appreciated. 

Coupon-mad

We have certainly seen cases like this before and they've been won or the PPC discontinued.

Your answer to the idea that it is your responsibility to make sure you paid for the right car park is that you made all reasonable endeavours to make sure you did.

The issue is, the Claimant has liaised with its phone payment provider without checking that there is already a car park with a similar name, and thus the doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the contract offered by phone was ambiguous.  The Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies, in that ambiguous terms and consumer notices shall be interpreted to favour the consumer.

It would have been easy to differentiate it clearly with an extra word or descriptor in the app as a subtitle, or even the claimant parking firm's 3 digit acronym 'NCP' coming up on the app but no such efforts were made to draw the right car park to a drivers' attention as opposed to the 'wrong' one.  The Claimant must be making hundreds of pounds per week extra due to this ambiguity and has no incentive to sort it out, which can't possibly pass the tests of transparency and fairness in the CRA 2015.

Your answer to the address issue is to explain your circs at the time but also point out to any court that the Claimant's agent had no trouble tracing you and a trace costs from 29p for bulk Credit Reference 'soft traces' with Experian

Having done so, and knowing then that the motorist had been offered no ADR (appeal) it was unfair and contrary to the pre-action protocol NOT to offer appeal.

POPLA codes can be and are given at ANY time in pre-action phases and yet NCP arbitrarily decided not to offer ADR despite it being available, for want of a ten digit code.  And they/their agents knew you hadn't had that opportunity because they found you had moved.  So, they knew that the earlier letters were not served, and should have been fairly re-issued, given the cost of tracing you was negligible and a trader has a duty to make consumers aware of any available ADR.  And the courts expect it of traders.

Guidance1

Coupon-mad said:

We have certainly seen cases like this before and they've been won or the PPC discontinued.

Your answer to the idea that it is your responsibility to make sure you paid for the right car park is that you made all reasonable endeavours to make sure you did.

The issue is, the Claimant has liaised with its phone payment provider without checking that there is already a car park with a similar name, and thus the doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the contract offered by phone was ambiguous.  The Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies, in that ambiguous terms and consumer notices shall be interpreted to favour the consumer.

It would have been easy to differentiate it clearly with an extra word or descriptor in the app as a subtitle, or even the claimant parking firm's 3 digit acronym 'NCP' coming up on the app but no such efforts were made to draw the right car park to a drivers' attention as opposed to the 'wrong' one.  The Claimant must be making hundreds of pounds per week extra due to this ambiguity and has no incentive to sort it out, which can't possibly pass the tests of transparency and fairness in the CRA 2015.

Your answer to the address issue is to explain your circs at the time but also point out to any court that the Claimant's agent had no trouble tracing you and a trace costs from 29p for bulk Credit Reference 'soft traces' with Experian

Having done so, and knowing then that the motorist had been offered no ADR (appeal) it was unfair and contrary to the pre-action protocol NOT to offer appeal.

POPLA codes can be and are given at ANY time in pre-action phases and yet NCP arbitrarily decided not to offer ADR despite it being available, for want of a ten digit code.  And they/their agents knew you hadn't had that opportunity because they found you had moved.  So, they knew that the earlier letters were not served, and should have been fairly re-issued, given the cost of tracing you was negligible and a trader has a duty to make consumers aware of any available ADR.  And the courts expect it of traders.

Thank you so much for this, its absolutely brilliant. 

They must have made so much money out of people doing a similar honest mistake and just paying once the threat letters arrive. Its disgusting really and makes the great work you and others on here do so worthwhile fighting back. 

I will get my defence submitted and let you know how i get on.  

Thanks againg