Claim form county court parking fine

Posterpots

Please could someone help?

I have received a claim form from Northampton county court. 

It is for a parking fine originally with Britannia parking group then passed to BW legal. 

I am the registered keeper of the car, however on the day of the parking fine, (Sept 21)  my husband was using the car. I believe he was at a pub car park on Merseyside. There was free parking for one hour, however he overstayed by 20 mins. 

I then received a penalty notice. Foolishly I then ignored another couple of letters, before, in April, I got my husband to email BW legal to say he was the driver at the time. BW legal acknowledged his email but said they require a signature which he failed to send. 

I did not receive a letter before claim letter,  but I have now received a claim form for an amount of £250.78

This seems really unfair for overstaying at a car park for 20 mins. However I am extremely worried about how a CCJ would affect my credit score and when and how would this be issued against me? 

Coupon-mad

BW Legal didn't need a signature. There is nothing in the POFA 2012 about a nominated driver having to supply a signature. IMHO they are playing a game and you need to include in your defence, that the Claimant knew who was driving and therefore could not pursue the keeper.

Did you email them first telling them you were not driving and naming him and providing his postal address?

You know how to defend a claim by reading any other claim thread. Read at least ten. Dead easy. We will help when you show us your draft paragraphs 2 and 3 (to add to the Template Defence) and I've already told you what part if that will be about (above). 

Could you help us please, by showing us the email trail where BW Legal said that a driver has to add a signature?

 It's b@ll@cks and I want to use this as evidence to the Government who are regulating the industry.  This could be really useful evidence.

Please can we see that (redacted of names of course)?  i.e. what your husband's email said and what BW's alleged disingenuous reply said?

thankyou - this is just rubbish and I want the Govt to know about what that roboclaim firm do.  Since recent times, I currently have a route to the ear of Govt which is lucky, and I want to use examples like this for consumer good.

Posterpots

Thanks very much for your advice, i have found the template and hope it is relevant to my case. I have pasted it below, would you mind reading it and letting me know if this looks right? I have also pasted copies of the emails between BWLegal and my husband as requested..

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 license as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

2. It is taken as fact that the vehicle in question, a ********  with the registration number ********, entered the car park of [location] on the dates specified by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim.

3. However it is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the PCN . The nominated driver at the time of the matter was my husband ******* ********. An email dated ** april was sent by my husband to BW legal, instructing them he was responsible for the fine and that all future correspondence should be sent to him. A reply email was sent by BW legal on the *** april acknowledged the contents of the email they had received. A request was made on the email for consent either by telephone or signed authorisation. There is nothing in the POFA 2012 about a nominated driver having to supply a signature. Therefore the claimant knew who was driving and therefore should not pursue the keeper of the vehicle.

4. The Claimant has failed to issue a Letter Before Action to the Defendant, or provide any details of the claim prior to issuing a claim at court. Any and all correspondences, such as Notices to Keeper, can only be said to have been sent to the actual registered keeper, which the Defendant denies being. As such, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, paragraph 6 (a) & (c).

5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle”. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16, 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

6. The Claimant has had months since serving their original Parking Charge Notices to pursue additional information to correctly identify the nominated driver of the vehicle on the day of the PCN and thereby ascertain actual liability for any claims brought forward. They have failed in their basic duty to do this due diligence.

7. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or by conduct.

8. The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon. Claiming ‘charges/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3. That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘CRA 2015’) legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71. The Defendant asserts that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regards to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14, and 18 in Sch2. NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

9. It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable. The Defendant’s position is that this money claim is a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135. Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper. At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge “would appear to be penal” and unrecoverable.

10. Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs – which is denied – they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain. It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.

11. 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 per Parking Charge Notice. The claim includes additional costs, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

12.  The Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

13. In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim misidentifies the vehicle keeper and driver, discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. The Claimant has had years since the original Parking Charge Notices to do their due diligence and rectify these issues and have failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

 

[Statement of Truth follows]

 

*Note: I'll also be filing/serving a fresh WS with the Defence, as suggested by Coupon

EMAIL TRAIL:

Dear Sir/Madam

My wife received a letter of claim for a parking fine from yourselves. However I was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking fine. 

Therefore please issue any future correspondence to myself. 

reply:

Good Afternoon 

Thank you for your email received, the contents of which we note.

 We confirm that your details do not match that of what we hold on our records.

 In event that you are contacting us on behalf of an individual, we require consent by telephone or signed correspondence for us to be able to assist you further.

 Signed authorisation can be forwarded to this email address or by post.

 Alternatively, please contact our offices on 0113 487 0432 to discuss this matter further.

 Kind Regards

 bwlegal®

 Email: parking@bwlegal.co.uk

Direct Dial: 0113 487 0432 

Postal: Enterprise House, 1 Apex View, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS11 9BH

Fruitcake

There is no me, myself, or I in a defence. You should refer to the claimant, the defendant, and the defendant's husband.
Do not use the word, "fine" to describe the charge.

Did your husband give any details in his email other than his name, such as his current address for service, the PCN number, and the VRM?

Even if he didn't, it would be reasonable for the claimant and solicitors to ask such questions in order to ensure they have correctly identified the person liable for the charge.

Coupon-mad

Your defence isn't based on the current template defence so start again. And in this sentence change 'should not' to 'legally cannot':

Therefore the claimant knew who was driving and should not pursue the keeper of the vehicle.

Did BW Legal really type this ungrammatical nonsense?!

 We confirm that your details do not match that of what we hold on our records.

Posterpots

Thanks very much for your advice, i have found the template and hope it is relevant to my case. I have pasted it below, would you mind reading it and letting me know if this looks right? I have also pasted copies of the emails between BWLegal and my husband as requested..

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 license as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

2. It is taken as fact that the vehicle in question, a ********  with the registration number ********, entered the car park of [location] on the dates specified by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim.

3. However it is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the PCN . The nominated driver at the time of the matter was my husband ******* ********. An email dated ** april was sent by my husband to BW legal, instructing them he was responsible for the fine and that all future correspondence should be sent to him. A reply email was sent by BW legal on the *** april acknowledged the contents of the email they had received. A request was made on the email for consent either by telephone or signed authorisation. There is nothing in the POFA 2012 about a nominated driver having to supply a signature. Therefore the claimant knew who was driving and therefore should not pursue the keeper of the vehicle.

4. The Claimant has failed to issue a Letter Before Action to the Defendant, or provide any details of the claim prior to issuing a claim at court. Any and all correspondences, such as Notices to Keeper, can only be said to have been sent to the actual registered keeper, which the Defendant denies being. As such, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, paragraph 6 (a) & (c).

5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle”. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16, 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

6. The Claimant has had months since serving their original Parking Charge Notices to pursue additional information to correctly identify the nominated driver of the vehicle on the day of the PCN and thereby ascertain actual liability for any claims brought forward. They have failed in their basic duty to do this due diligence.

7. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or by conduct.

8. The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon. Claiming ‘charges/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3. That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘CRA 2015’) legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71. The Defendant asserts that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regards to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14, and 18 in Sch2. NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

9. It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable. The Defendant’s position is that this money claim is a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135. Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper. At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge “would appear to be penal” and unrecoverable.

10. Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs – which is denied – they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain. It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.

11. 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 per Parking Charge Notice. The claim includes additional costs, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

12.  The Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

13. In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim misidentifies the vehicle keeper and driver, discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. The Claimant has had years since the original Parking Charge Notices to do their due diligence and rectify these issues and have failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

 

[Statement of Truth follows]

 

*Note: I'll also be filing/serving a fresh WS with the Defence, as suggested by Coupon

EMAIL TRAIL:

Dear Sir/Madam

My wife received a letter of claim for a parking fine from yourselves. However I was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged parking fine. 

Therefore please issue any future correspondence to myself. 

reply:

Good Afternoon 

Thank you for your email received, the contents of which we note.

 We confirm that your details do not match that of what we hold on our records.

 In event that you are contacting us on behalf of an individual, we require consent by telephone or signed correspondence for us to be able to assist you further.

 Signed authorisation can be forwarded to this email address or by post.

 Alternatively, please contact our offices on 0113 487 0432 to discuss this matter further.

 Kind Regards

 bwlegal®

 Email: parking@bwlegal.co.uk

Direct Dial: 0113 487 0432 

Postal: Enterprise House, 1 Apex View, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS11 9BH

Posterpots

Thank you for the feedback. I have been looking through the website and Ive been unable to find the current template. I would be very greatful if you could provide a link please?

Yes BW legal did email that sentance. I copied and pastered directly.

Thanks again for all your help

Coupon-mad

You already have a link back to page one on every page.

Because we want you to use that each time and it's vital that all posters know how to hop around the forum and always be able to get back to page one, we never link the Template Defence thread.

That wouldn't help you to use the resource of this forum properly in future. That's no help to you!

See my signature. It explains where your hyperlink to page one is at the top of every/any page, and what it looks like.

Use the breadcrumb trail link back to page one now, and you will realise how dead easy this forum is to navigate.

One click and there it is...

1505grandad

If you are using a phone the forum is not "proper" with that  -  a laptop etc is much better.

Posterpots

 Thanks again, sorry but I'm really struggling to find the correct template. (is this the one below?) I cannot access any links on your signature.  I am running out of time and really panicking, losing sleep and getting stressed. Would really appreciate urgent help. 

When my husband emailed BWLegal, he did tell them his name and address. Also we phoned BW legal on Monday to them directly to let them know again it was my husband who was driving and gave our details, however they didnt seem interested and just wanted us to pay the £250 or a payment plan.

Re PCN number:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle. Does this line still apply even though we emailed to say I was not driving the car?

When we sent an email to inform you that I was not the driver of the car at the time of the alleged offence, you acknolwedged this and requested we send a signture from my husband to confirm this. This is not a requirement, there is nothing in the POFA 2012 about a nominated driver having to supply a signature because,  you knew who was driving and therefore cannot pursue the registered keeper. Not sure if this is relevant now? If I shouldn't be admitting husband was driving?

Le_Kirk

What you have posted above is the initial appeal - the one in blue text in the NEWBIE sticky first post.  Surely you are looking for the template defence.  Go to page one of the forum (as per @Coupon-mad's instructions) and find the announcement that starts "Template Defence to adapt............"