BW Legal Claim Form Via County Court Business Centre please help?

Coupon-mad

Manjaik said:

Thank you everyone for the input, the defence has been submitted and acknowledged now, further I will update what is the outcome. 

The final outcome is months away.

Several stages for you in between.  See the NEWBIES thread for the DQ N180 questions in 2 months' time.

One favour please:

Whilst your case is quiet, please could you help us with OTHER car park evidence that I need in August & September, to take to the Government?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6463361/dluhc-private-parking-code-government-launches-call-for-evidence-discussion-thread#latest

Please please add photos as seen there!  Think of this call for evidence when strolling around your town and you spot car parks at churches, shops & businesses that are unrestricted yet there is no abuse, no 'carmageddon'!

OR supermarkets with £70 PCNs only.

OR hospitals with £50 or £60 to deter abuse.

All I need is photos and location.

I will do the rest...

I can PROMISE this evidence will be seen by the decision-makers because I'm on the Code of Practice Government Steering Group representing motorists, and the DLUHC will read my submissions.

Manjaik

Update: received letter from bwlegal - intention to proceed.
and a note that I can pay full lump sum of £1500 as stated on claim form, or monthly payments.
As I understand the basic sum is no longer valid, (£1300) since those £200 are coats for court etc. 

I am awaiting form N180.

Coupon-mad

£1300 isn't the core sum. Judges aren't stupid enough to let a PPC pretend that!

KeithP

Manjaik said:

Update: received letter from bwlegal - intention to proceed.

Keep following that checklist that @Le_Kirk mentioned.
You are now at item 7 on that list.

Manjaik

Good afternoon I have acreply from BW legal.

” Response to your Defence

The underlying purpose of our correspondence is to deal with purely the factual elements of our Client's claim.

Whilst your defence raises a swathe of technical arguments, the source of which appears to be an online template, we do not intend to rehearse any technical arguments at this stage, as the suitable forum for this would be by way of submissions at the relevant hearing. We do not consider these arguments to be relevant as the evidence in our Client's possession supports their position that you breached the Terms and Conditions. As such, our Client maintains that you are liable for the parking charge.

You did not receive no notice of new parking regulator... You deny there was any contractual agreement between you and the Claimant

Our Client is the lawful occupier of the Car Park, and, as the lawful occupier, they are authorised to manage and enforce the Terms and Conditions (as advertised on the signage), issue PCs and enforce them. You parked close by to our client's signage as seen within the enclosed images taken by our client's parking attendant on each of the Contravention Dates.

You deny that Claimant has suffered loss or damage

Our Client has contracted with you, subject to compliance with their Terms and Conditions. Following your breach of these terms, our Client is simply enforcing their contractual position by recovering each parking charge from you.”

“ The terms of the AST are that you occupied the flat and accessed the common parts of the premises such as the car parking are...

the AST does not state that you must display permits... even then you would

have had to specifically agree to this by signing the agreement

You fail to provide any evidence to suggest you had a right to park in breach of the Terms and Conditions.

The AST is silent with regard to parking permits and defendant had right to peaceful enjoyment and there was no legal obligation to display a parking permit or pay penalty charges to third parties and as such the Claimant's signage at the location does not bind the Defendant... The onus is on the parking company that Defendant are subject to those terms

As a user of the Car Park, it remained your responsibility to ensure you read, understood and complied with the Terms and Conditions of parking.

The signage in situ provided motorists with the Terms and Conditions of

parking, with any breach leading to a PCN being issued. Accordingly, you entered into a contract with our Client, including becoming liable to pay a parking charge in the event of a breach.

The POC is sparse on facts and specific breach allegation making it difficult to respond

The particulars clearly set out the basis of our Client's claim.”

After is a paragraph offering paying in full or monthly instalments. 

Coupon-mad

Ignore that. No response.

But!  What to do right now, is this please... to change all this by being heard by a Government Committee, if you could reply to this Inquiry that would be great.

...only TWO WEEKS left to do this VERY relevant Inquiry linked & discussed here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80417494/#Comment_80417494

Really relevant because the reason that the county court is clogged up is because up to a THIRD of all small claims are private parking. 
The delays by the CNBC are directly caused by half a million parking claims p.a.  It needs to stop. 

Your claim paperwork (and proof you are/were a resident who was authorised to park) will be great evidence of the meritless 'cause of action' constantly bombarding the courts and wasting time then discontinuing.

Show the Ministers the very basic claim Particulars - but not that latest response.

Your replies are about showing how parking firms abuse the court service.

Please tell the Ministers on this Committee that there needs to be a bespoke parking Alternative Dispute Resolution 'court buffer' at pre-action stage, and the use of the "debt claims" pre-action protocol is totally improper.  Asking for people's income on a 'debtor' reply form is an insult and utterly inappropriate.

And why should parking cases have SIX YEARS to bring to court? They should have two years max, allowing 12/18 months for PCN, appeal, ADR, then impasse.

Then they should not be allowed to just sit on DVLA keeper data for years and gain 8% interest as a reward for sitting on their hands.

Also tell the Committee to please contact the DLUHC private parking Code of Practice team who would really appreciate a new PAP for Parking Claims and the 6 year claim Limitation period being at least halved for parking cases.  This would really support regulators in 2024 as the private parking regulation rolls into effect.

I think if enough people say the above sort of stuff, this Justice Committee will go and talk to the DLUHC guys I'm dealing with, and hopefully recommend a new pre-action protocol to stop the vast majority of cases even going to a claim.

Please please do the Inquiry with your claim form and views.

  

Trainerman

Is it really that badly written? They would have you believe they are educated legal people (very obviously not). The mind boggles !!!

Easy to ignore anyway

Coupon-mad

The above is a new one to the Justice Committee, just to be clear. 

Currently open for two more weeks.  Not the same as the DLUHC's own Call for Evidence as I asked you to kindly do in August.

patient_dream

What a very odd reply from BWLegal, highly unprofessional

THEY SAY ...
"Whilst your defence raises a swathe of technical arguments, the source of which appears to be an online template"

HAHA what do these robo claimers DO ??
They go online and use a template except they leave out all the important things which they call technical and don;t want to answer

That will please a Judge  ... THINK NOT

You may well use a template but your WS is factual 

RUBBISH TO IGNORE

We have seen many such letters from BWLegal but this one really takes the biscuit ..... shameful, does BWLegal really pay their wages ? 

Manjaik

@Coupon-mad
I have been through that evidence thing already. is there another one ?