Letter of Claim - Napier Parking Limited - BW Legal

Delamarmalade

Ok thank you, you did advise me to give the name of the driver and state that the driver has a disability and give postal address on post 2nd Oct 2024 at 7:45pm. 

Should I send something like this for the AOS and to BW Legal again.

I refer to PCN Xxxx from Napier Parking Limited.

The alleged ‘penalty charge’ is disputed. I have a long term disability and evidence of that is attached.

I paid for a parking ticket by app and made my way back to the car as soon as I could, but I am not familiar with the area and have a disability so required an extended period of time for the money paid. I have 'protected characteristics' as defined in the Equality Act 2010 ('the EA') and are legally entitled to more time.

See the precedent set just after the EA was enacted: the legal victory against Norwich and Lincoln Councils, achieved by the IPC's friend Helen Dolphin:

https://www.wake-smith.co.uk/latest-news/news-archive/2011/06/20/Council-Car-Park-Case-Settled-A-Victory-for-Blue-Badge-Holders

All parking providers must comply with the EA.  There is no excuse or justification that the operator didn't know about the driver's disability need. That would only relate to an accusation of 'direct discrimination' which is not the case.

It is my position that by not providing a way - as all Local Authorities now do, and ParkingEye and Horizon do, for example - for a disabled driver to claim more time without paying more, Napier have committed an offence of indirect discrimination.

I am a vulnerable person and should not be put through a court situation. 

Yours faithfully

And attach the disability info (PIP). 

Coupon-mad

No, not yet. Nothing to do with AOS.

I told you the defence comes first then the BW email after defending.

Delamarmalade

Ok thanks, so follow the AOS then after submit the defence (but wait for the shorter version you are doing), and also send the email to BW Legal. 

Coupon-mad

Tis ready!

Delamarmalade

Oh ok great - thank you! Is it in the same post where AOS is?

Le_Kirk

Delamarmalade said:

Oh ok great - thank you! Is it in the same post where AOS is?

It (the template defence) has its own place as one of the announcements on first page of the parking forum.  The AoS is submitted by following the walkthrough and no text goes with it.

Delamarmalade

Thanks @Le_Kirk and @Coupon-mad

I’ve drafted paragraph 3 to add to the MCOL defence response, as follows:

Please let me know if you think I should make any changes to this. (I will also send a response to BW Legal which I will put here separately, for feedback). 

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the driver.

3. The defendant has a long term disability and has protected characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010 ('the EA') and is legally entitled to more time. All parking providers must comply with the EA. It is the defendants position that by not providing a way to claim more time without paying more, Napier have committed an offence: 'indirect discrimination'.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Gr1pr

I am not sure that the word offence  should be used

Delamarmalade

Maybe I should remove that final sentence? So para 3 reads:

3. The defendant has a long term disability and has protected characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010 ('the EA') and is legally entitled to more time. All parking providers must comply with the EA. 

Coupon-mad

The word offence is correct to describe an EA breach. Add it back in.

Once you have hit 'SUBMIT' re the defence, please don't disappear! If you want to make a difference to stop this utter scammery in future:

Stick around in August to take part in the Government's Public Consultation. We have an important thread about that and we need ALL Defendants to respond to the questions to shape the regulation of this rogue industry.

Please come back in a couple of weeks. Bookmark the thread on the Public Consultation. Go read it now, please.