IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Help Required with Train Station Car Park Claim Form Defence Letter pls

Quick backstory.
I received claim form from BW Legal for 2 unpaid parking charges (totalling £340) at a local train station car park - I likely forgot to pay for parking on those 2 occasions and I park there most days. I have being sent a claim form dated 6th Dec 2023. MCOL acknowledgement was done on the 13th Dec and would like to send the defence letter before I go spend the xmas with the in-laws.

I am however now struggling to phrase what I should say in paragraph 3 of the defence letter. Hmm...before you tell me to go look at the Newbies page, I have spent 2 long days on there and looking for threads, cues or samples of what I can say in Paragraph 3. I have also done numerous searches. 

Help please! Any pointer cases suitable for my situation would be greatly appreciated.
«1

Comments

  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 37,104
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    ShayMoney said:
    Quick backstory.
    I received claim form from BW Legal for 2 unpaid parking charges (totalling £340) at a local train station car park - I likely forgot to pay for parking on those 2 occasions and I park there most days. I have being sent a claim form dated 6th Dec 2023. MCOL acknowledgement was done on the 13th Dec and would like to send the defence letter before I go spend the xmas with the in-laws.

    With a Claim Issue Date of 6th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th January 2024 to file your Defence.

    That's over two 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.
    Don't miss the deadline 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'.
  • 1505grandad
    1505grandad Posts: 2,848
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    Forumite
    Who is the claimant?
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,350
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 22 December 2023 at 12:55AM
    Show us the claim form with your data and all refs, password, claim no & QR Code redacted.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Thanks for your prompt response. @Coupon-mad please see attached.
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,350
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80457916/#Comment_80457916

    Same advice.  BW Legal seem to have forgotten how to write compliant POCs.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Thank you @Coupon-mad.

    So this is what my draft defence looks like now...how does my paragraph 5 please?  B)

    1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

    Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

    2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant POC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

    3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    (The images of the Chan transcript will be inserted here)...

    The facts known to the Defendant:

    4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

    5. The Defendant observes that in a claim alleging breach of contract, the lack of statement of what that conduct was, what the terms were, what the breach was, nor even where the alleged conduct took place (no car park location is given) must surely mean the claim must be struck out.


    Paragraph 6 onwards is the rest of the template....

    6. . The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

    (i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

    (Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 129,350
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 22 December 2023 at 11:52PM
    Remove 'driver'.  You don't know that.

    I wonder if you should add a para 6 and 7:

    6.  In the event that the allocating Judge does not dismiss the claim due to all of the above issues (including the appeal authority) the Defendant will be reduced to guessing how to respond to the non-specified allegations and having to assume what this case might be about.  Even the alleged dates of breach(es) are unclear: the POC merely says 'between x and y date' which spans a whole week and absolutely fails to narrow the issues.

    7. It is neither admitted nor denied that there was any breach of terms, or that the unspecified location is 'private land' because the POC are woeful gobbledegook. Keeper liability is denied because the Defendant can only think of a train station car park locally which has this Claimant's signs. However, that location is covered by railway byelaws, thus it is not 'relevant land' under the applicable law and the prospect of 'keeper liability' does not pass at such sites. Not that the POC explain why and upon what basis the Defendant is being pursued.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Le_Kirk
    Le_Kirk Posts: 21,941
    First Anniversary First Post Photogenic Name Dropper
    Forumite
    5. The Defendant observes that in a claim alleging breach of contract, the lack of statement of what that conduct was, what the terms were, what the breach was, nor even and where the alleged conduct took place (no car park location is given) must surely means the claim must be struck out.

    I would adjust as above.

  • Great! Thank you both @Coupon-mad & @Le_Kirk.

    Revised defence incorporating your suggestions....

    1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

    Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

    2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant POC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

    3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    (The images of the Chan transcript will be inserted here)...

    The facts known to the Defendant:

    4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

    5. The Defendant observes that in a claim alleging breach of contract, the lack of statement of what that conduct was, what the terms were, what the breach was, and where the alleged conduct took place (no car park location is given) means the claim must be struck out. 

    6.  In the event that the allocating Judge does not dismiss the claim due to all of the above issues (including the appeal authority) the Defendant will be reduced to guessing how to respond to the non-specified allegations and having to assume what this case might be about.  Even the alleged dates of breach(es) are unclear: the POC merely says 'between x and y date' which spans a whole week and absolutely fails to narrow the issues.

    7. It is neither admitted nor denied that there was any breach of terms, or that the unspecified location is 'private land' because the POC are woeful gobbledegook. Keeper liability is denied because the Defendant can only think of a train station car park locally which has this Claimant's signs. However, that location is covered by railway byelaws, thus it is not 'relevant land' under the applicable law and the prospect of 'keeper liability' does not pass at such sites. Not that the POC explain why and upon what basis the Defendant is being pursued.


    Paragraph 8 onwards is the rest of the template....

  • ShayMoney
    ShayMoney Posts: 7
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Hello folks, 

    Apologies for the daft question but I have just received a letter from BW Legal dated the 10th of January 2024, offering me a payment plan and giving me until the 31st January 2024 or they will apply for a CCJ. Am I right in thinking that this is safe to ignore?

    I now see the acknowledgement of my defence on MCOL (screenshot below), what is the typical next steps from here please? 




Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.5K Life & Family
  • 246.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards