BW Legal for PPM - Hearing August 2025

Coupon-mad

But you are at defence stage, not (much later) WS, aren't you?

jd576

Coupon-mad said:

But you are at defence stage, not (much later) WS, aren't you?

Yes, absolutely - I'm at the defence stage. But I like to think several steps ahead, so as I'm drafting the defence, I'm making notes on the evidentiary documents that I would submit in support of my defence when making the witness statement.

Coupon-mad

OK, no worries but nothing needs changing in the defence except your facts section.

Also be aware that the previous Government wanted to ban debt recovery fees and called them 'extorting money'.

By the time you reach your WS stage, likely in the Winter, I would expect this new Government to have cracked on with the final Impact Assessment.  So by then, you will know the direction of travel of the incoming statutory regime and those strike out cases may or may not mirror the state of play (re debt recovery fees) according to the new Ministers.

What I'm saying is, those cases might not be particularly useful.  Better will be an understanding of whatever the new Government publish.  I'm involved, I am on the Code Steering Group helping to inform the DLUHC, and I am hopeful it will be similar.  But nobody knows at the moment.

jd576

In section 3 where the Defendant explains why the car was there, it expressly notes that one shouldn't "answer to details that are not stated in the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM". 

For example, in the response to my appeal, the claimant put in a number of incorrect assertions in the appeal response, for example that the signage was clearly visible (it was unlit in the hours of darkness). Since these assertions will need to be addressed at some time, should this be done here in #3 the defence or, since the "clearly visible assertion" was not explicitly included in the POC, should I not refer to it at all?

Given the advice not to answer to details not stated in the particulars of claim, where does one address all these other points of defence I raised previously in this comment: 

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80876938/#Comment_80876938

KeithP

jd576 said:

Given the advice not to answer to details not stated in the particulars of claim, where does one address all these other points...

At Witness Statement time... several months down the road.

jd576

KeithP said:

jd576 said:

Given the advice not to answer to details not stated in the particulars of claim, where does one address all these other points...

At Witness Statement time... several months down the road.

So the defence is literally a formulaic elaboration of the facts, a flat-out denial that the Defendant is in breach or that a contract exists and the specific arguments as to why the claim is disputed are left to the witness statement?

So given the claim form image I posted above, point #3 in the defence should simply address ALL of the claims in the POC (unauthorized parking, the terms were breached and that a debt recovery charge is payable). So #3 should state exactly what @Coupon-mad wrote here and no more: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80879007/#Comment_80879007

Reserve the elaboration of the defence argument for the witness statement?

Coupon-mad

That sort of concise stuff, yes, plus I would suggest you add that the signs were not seen and upon later review under the same conditions, the terms were unreadable and failed the legal test of prominence.

Don't mention darkness as that might tip them off to include some pics of those signs in the dark with a flash, for their own WS.

jd576

Coupon-mad said:

That sort of concise stuff, yes, plus I would suggest you add that the signs were not seen and upon later review under the same conditions, the terms were unreadable and failed the legal test of prominence.

Don't mention darkness as that might tip them off to include some pics of those signs in the dark with a flash, for their own WS.

Perhaps not concise per-se, but would this be suitable for #3?

On [DATE], the Defendant visited [ENTERPRISE] in [ROAD NAME]. [ENTERPRISE] is a tenant of [LANDOWNER]. On entry to [ROAD NAME], the signs were not seen and upon later review under the same conditions, the terms were unreadable and failed the legal test of prominence.

The Defendant was a verified visitor to [ENTERPRISE], with a documented visit at the time of the alleged contravention, who availed themselves of the parking facilities that [ENTERPRISE] makes available for their visitors. The Defendant believes that they registered the vehicle on the terminal in reception on this occasion.

On [DATE], Defendant was surprised to receive an “overdue notice” from the Claimant, asserting that the vehicle with registration mark [REGISTRATION] was “parked in a manner which breached our terms and conditions”, that the “discounted rate of £60 no longer applies as you are outside the 14-day time frame, the full charge of £100 is now due”.

This was the first that the Defendant knew of an alleged breach, not having received any prior notice of such. While Defendant realises that “non-receipt” is not a valid defence, the Defendant would like to point out that these parking management companies have a very strong incentive not to deliver the first notice, as this then allows them to claim a full 40% uplift on the original demand, which amount flows directly to the bottom line, leading to an unconscionable £100 demand, allegedly for a simple and unproven failure to register the vehicle of a valid visitor to a tenant who has parking rights.

The Defendant immediately appealed the charge directly with the Claimant on [DATE] and at all times disputed the allegation that the parking was somehow “unauthorized”, asserting that the Defendant was indeed an authorised user of the bay, attaching documentary evidence that the Defendant was a valid visitor to [ENTERPRISE] at the exact time of the alleged contravention. The Defendant asserts that they were not a member of the general public but a genuine visitor of the tenant, duly availing themselves of parking made available expressly for the use of visitors and thus was not “unauthorised”. 

In the appeal, the Defendant requested the Claimant to supply logs of the terminal registrations that occurred during the period covering the alleged breach to demonstrate that the Defendant had not registered the vehicle in the database. 

In the appeal response dated [DATE], the Claimant rejected the representation out of hand, asserting that “the signage is clearly visible”, “the signage is prominent” and that “it is the driver’s responsibility to check for signage, check the legality and obtain any authorisation for parking before leaving their vehicle” (said latter assertion being in direct contradiction to the terms on the sign, established by later review of the signage). Claimant openly admitted that “we cannot allow parking which is not in accordance with the parking regulations, whatever the circumstances”, essentially making clear that a rejection of any and all appeals is a foregone conclusion.

The Claimant failed to supply the evidence requested in the appeal, a list of vehicle registrations covering the time of the alleged breach or to prove in any way that the vehicle was “unauthorized”.

The Claimant failed even to offer any proof of parking. The two photographs supplied as evidence of parking in the Parking Charge Notice and submitted as evidence of breach of the alleged “contract” and as evidence of “unauthorized parking” show only a front and rear number plate. It’s impossible even to make out the car in these photographs, let alone the actual location of the car and where it was allegedly parked. 

This conduct by the Claimant disadvantaged the Defendant, failed to narrow the issues and as such, it was in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims, as was the series of inflated demands which are inappropriate in a 'disputed debt' case.

Coupon-mad

That's very good as your facts section. Long but relevant. All paragraphs need a number, so the defence will end up with over 40 paragraphs, which is OK

You have two different spellings of 'unauthorised'.

jd576

Coupon-mad said:

You have two different spellings of 'unauthorised'.

Indeed. I spell it correctly with the UK spelling using an "S". Where I've quoted the Claimant, they spell it with a "Z".