In a pickle - Admitted I was the driver to IAS - BW legal email response help

Help___please

Coupon-mad said:

Remove 14c because that's not related to the counterclaim (sorry I missed it!).

Change this as shown:

14. In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully counterclaims for:

a. A financial compensation remedy due to the Claimant's breach of the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 by...

Add in some wording about Simon Clay v CEL (search the forum) and point out that he won his case against a parking firm which had no reasonable cause to obtain his DVLA data.  I think he got £200 plus costs.

Add 'and counterclaim' to your Statement of Truth otherwise your Counterclaim isn't signed or dated!

You need to say how much your counterclaim is for (£300 for which the fee is £35?) and put the sub-heading in bold, so the CNBC staff spot it.  You then phone up the CNBC next week to pay the fee, say a day after emailing it off to them.

Thanks @Coupon-mad , I've just read the rather impressive thread that you were part of in @pullmyfinger88 case where a counterclaim was made and referenced some of those cases. 

On reading that thread, if I am honest, I didn't realise how much work it would take and don't want to start the ball rolling with something that becomes too big. I just want them to drop the stupid charge.

To make it just a defence and not a counterclaim, is it as simple as just removing #14 and #17 in my defence? 

 

Help___please

EDITED DEFENCE WITHOUT COUNTER CLAIM:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XXXXX

Between

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                   

 (Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

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

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

 2. The Claimant has brought a claim against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant violated parking regulations at Lusty Glaze car park.

3. The Defendant admits that they were the driver of the vehicle in question but denies any breach of parking regulations. The Defendant further asserts that the parking charge of £6.20, for the first session at Lusty Glaze car park between 11:01 – 14:01 on 21/07/2024, was paid in full and in advance. The claimant has a record of this payment that they confirmed with the defendant.  This means that the Defendant’s personal data was wrongfully obtained from the DVLA in relation to the alleged contravention.

4. The Defendant, alongside their wife and friends, left the vehicle to visit the beach, and upon returning, exited the car park sometime between 13:00 and 14:01 to drive back to their campsite so that their 2-year-old child could take a nap.

5. Later that same day, the Defendant returned to Lusty Glaze car park after purchasing fish and chips in Newquay town centre. The Defendant entered the car park again at approximately 16:38 and purchased a second parking session from 16:38 to 18:38, paying the £4.50 charge in full. Again, the claimant has a record of this payment, which they confirmed with the defendant. The vehicle exited the car park at 18:38.

6. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has wrongly assumed a parking contravention occurred due to a failure to fully review the Automatic Number Plate Recognition ("ANPR") images. This led the Claimant to wrongly obtain the Defendant’s personal details from the DVLA under false pretenses.

7. The Defendant submits that the Claimant’s claim arises from a mistaken interpretation of the vehicle’s movements and the associated parking sessions and is a clear case of “double dipping” as referred to in the IPC code of practice (7.3 note 1). The Defendant fully complied with the parking requirements and paid for both parking sessions at Lusty Glaze car park, as evidenced by payment by the defendant.

8.  The Defendant further asserts that "double dipping" (where a vehicle is mistakenly recorded as having overstayed when it has in fact exited and re-entered the car park during the same day -  IPC code of practice (7.3 note 1)) is a common occurrence and can be caused by factors such as adverse weather conditions, or, more commonly, tailgating. In this case, the Defendant believes that such a scenario occurred, leading to an inaccurate claim of a parking violation.

9. The Defendant would like to bring to the attention the specifics in the IPC code of practice (7.3 note 1): ‘The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15). The manual check might also reveal where “tailgating” – vehicles passing a camera close together – is a problem, suggesting relocation of the camera might be necessary'. 

10. The Defendant asserts that the vehicle was parked legally during both parking sessions and was only in the car park for the time periods for which payments had been made. The claim of a parking contravention is therefore without merit. The defendant has disputed this on multiple occasions through direct contact with the claimant, the IAS and BW Legal. On each occasion, at best receiving back copy and paste, template responses and on some occasions nothing at all.   

11. The Defendant contends that the Claimant failed to fully review their ANPR images and failed to properly consider the circumstances of the Defendant’s parking sessions. The Claimant's actions in pursuing this matter are indicative of a lack of due diligence. 

12. The Defendant submits that the Claimant's actions in acquiring the Defendant's personal data from the DVLA were unlawful under the DPA 2018. The Claimant did not have a legitimate basis to access the Defendant's details, as the vehicle was not in contravention of parking regulations.

13. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has committed an offence under the DPA 2018 by wrongfully obtaining the Defendant’s personal data from the DVLA based on a false claim of a parking contravention. The Claimant has caused unnecessary distress to the Defendant by relentlessly harassing the defendant pursuing this false claim, which amounts to a breach of the Defendant's rights under the DPA 2018.

Conclusion

15. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant’s claim is based on a misunderstanding of the circumstances and an improper assumption of a parking contravention. The Defendant denies liability for the parking charge and asserts that the Claimant’s actions in obtaining personal data from the DVLA were unlawful.

16. The Defendant seeks the dismissal of the Claimant's claim, along with the appropriate relief for the breach of the Data Protection Act 2018, and any other remedies the Court deems fit.

17.  The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defendant’s signature:

Date:

Coupon-mad

That'll do.

Totally get it about the faff of a counterclaim.  They will drop the claim by the Summer.

Nellymoser

If you want to see Parking companies practice improve then sign the petition linked in the post below. Ask family, friends and work colleagues to sign too. 

Once your signature is confirmed use the shown link to 'Contact your MP to let them know you have signed this petition'. Our MPs are the ones to make this happen. 🙏

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81195013/#Comment_81195013

Help___please

Got a Notice of discontinuance letter today from BW legal, a month before the proposed court date. I recently submitted two witness statements and it seems they took this right upto the point where they had to pay the court fees and then withdrew when they realised I would go to court and defend. 

In particular I have to thank @Coupon-mad and @Nellymoser for their guidance and wisdom & any other contributors on this thread. 

Anyone reading this in similar situation, it is achievable if you follow their advice and more need to do it to stand up against these companies! Over and out 

Coupon-mad

Help___please said:

Got a Notice of discontinuance letter today from BW legal, a month before the proposed court date. I recently submitted two witness statements and it seems they took this right upto the point where they had to pay the court fees and then withdrew when they realised I would go to court and defend. 

In particular I have to thank @Coupon-mad and @Nellymoser for their guidance and wisdom & any other contributors on this thread. 

Anyone reading this in similar situation, it is achievable if you follow their advice and more need to do it to stand up against these companies! Over and out 

Not over and out, please! Not quite.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Congrats! You won at last.

Won the battle. But what about the war?

If you want to be part of the push to change things in future, it's very important that people like you join us to reply to the new Public Consultation, to tell the Government NOW that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 *almost* promised. As long as it is independent (and only ONE appeals service, not two involved in a race to the bottom) that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY A THUG THIRD PARTY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A POINTLESS 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

c). Tell them about your experience and that your case proceeded to a claim precisely because (a) and (b) above mean there is no option, no safeguard for consumers EXCEPT court.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Do it in August pleeease! We will discuss it all in more detail in the coming weeks on that thread.

Help___please

Of course, will do.